[Bug 1914195] New: Review Request: python-awesomeversion - Python module to deal with versions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914195
Bug ID: 1914195 Summary: Review Request: python-awesomeversion - Python module to deal with versions Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mail@fabian-affolter.ch QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-awesomeversion.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-awesomeversion-20.12.5-1....
Project URL: https://github.com/ludeeus/awesomeversion
Description: Python module to deal with versions if it comes to comparing them. Make anything a version object, and compare against a vast section of other version formats.
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=59175463
rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-awesomeversion-20.12.5-1.fc33.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint python3-awesomeversion-20.12.5-1.fc33.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Fedora Account System Username: fab
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914195
Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1914191 Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914191 [Bug 1914191] python-haversion-20.12.1 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914195
Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1915285
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1915285 [Bug 1915285] python-haversion: FTBFS in Fedora rawhide: ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'awesomeversion'
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914195
code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |code@musicinmybrain.net Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |code@musicinmybrain.net Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914195
code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(mail@fabian-affol | |ter.ch)
--- Comment #1 from code@musicinmybrain.net --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== Issues =====
[!]: BR on requests is wrong; please remove it. The requests import is used only in scripts/create_test_from_issue.py, which is neither used in the build nor installed. [!]: Version 21.1.0 came out since you submitted this request. I know new releases are coming out quickly, but could you please make that one update as long as you are making other changes? [!]: The python_provide macro is obsolete. Please remove it. If you are not packaging for Fedora 32, you do not even need py_provides. See
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_the_py_pr....
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Expat License". 39 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/src/fedora/reviews/python- awesomeversion/1914195-python-awesomeversion/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
Obsolete python_provide macro. See Issues.
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged.
Okay, 20.12.5 was the latest version when you submitted the review, and new releases are coming out very quickly, but could you please update to 21.1.0?
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-awesomeversion-20.12.5-1.fc34.noarch.rpm python-awesomeversion-20.12.5-1.fc34.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ludeeus/awesomeversion/archive/20.12.5/awesomeversion-20.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 64ecc42e6c70884a11aa119e161aef2dd37b7e1b5eaa21658377051a6588a090 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 64ecc42e6c70884a11aa119e161aef2dd37b7e1b5eaa21658377051a6588a090
Requires -------- python3-awesomeversion (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi)
Provides -------- python3-awesomeversion: python-awesomeversion python3-awesomeversion python3.9-awesomeversion python3.9dist(awesomeversion) python3dist(awesomeversion)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1914195 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, Perl, SugarActivity, C/C++, fonts, Ocaml, Haskell, PHP, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914195
Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(mail@fabian-affol | |ter.ch) |
--- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch --- (In reply to code from comment #1)
Package Review
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== Issues =====
[!]: BR on requests is wrong; please remove it. The requests import is used only in scripts/create_test_from_issue.py, which is neither used in the build nor installed. [!]: Version 21.1.0 came out since you submitted this request. I know new releases are coming out quickly, but could you please make that one update as long as you are making other changes? [!]: The python_provide macro is obsolete. Please remove it. If you are not packaging for Fedora 32, you do not even need py_provides. See
Thanks
%changelog * Thu Jan 21 2021 Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch - 21.1.3-1 - Remove BR and obsolete macro - Update to latest upstream release 21.1.3 (#)
Updated files: Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-awesomeversion.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-awesomeversion-21.1.3-1.f...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914195
code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from code@musicinmybrain.net --- Looks great. Approved.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Expat License". 39 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/1914195-python- awesomeversion/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-awesomeversion-21.1.3-1.fc34.noarch.rpm python-awesomeversion-21.1.3-1.fc34.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ludeeus/awesomeversion/archive/21.1.3/awesomeversion-21.1... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 58b5d33a6296d8895dc4c173ca19bbb3df3b0cfce5af872bf6dca201e7d7be4a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 58b5d33a6296d8895dc4c173ca19bbb3df3b0cfce5af872bf6dca201e7d7be4a
Requires -------- python3-awesomeversion (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi)
Provides -------- python3-awesomeversion: python-awesomeversion python3-awesomeversion python3.9-awesomeversion python3.9dist(awesomeversion) python3dist(awesomeversion)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1914195 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, C/C++, Haskell, Java, PHP, fonts, Ocaml, Perl, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914195
--- Comment #4 from Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch --- Thanks for the review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914195
Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914195
--- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-awesomeversion
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914195
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-55644180c4 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-55644180c4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914195
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-55644180c4 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-55644180c4 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-55644180c4
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914195
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2021-02-02 03:09:32
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-55644180c4 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com