[Bug 2316566] New: Review Request: python-binary-manager - Binman firmware-packaging tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316566
Bug ID: 2316566 Summary: Review Request: python-binary-manager - Binman firmware-packaging tool Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: davide@cavalca.name QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-binary-manager/python-binary... SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-binary-manager/python-binary...
Description: Binman provides a mechanism for building images, from simple SPL + U-Boot combinations, to more complex arrangements with many parts. It also allows users to inspect images, extract and replace binaries within them, repacking if needed.
Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316566
Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |2316562
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316562 [Bug 2316562] Review Request: python-dtoc - Devicetree-to-C generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316566
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://docs.u-boot.org/en/ | |latest/develop/package/inde | |x.html
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8110336 (failed)
Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.
- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316566
Tom.Rix@amd.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |Tom.Rix@amd.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |Tom.Rix@amd.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316566
Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316566 Bug 2316566 depends on bug 2316562, which changed state.
Bug 2316562 Summary: Review Request: python-dtoc - Devicetree-to-C generator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316562
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316566
--- Comment #2 from Tom.Rix@amd.com ---
This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /sfs/fedora-review/review-python-binary- manager/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.13, /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 88313 bytes in 1 files. [ ]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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: [ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-binary-manager-0.0.6-1.fc42.noarch.rpm python-binary-manager-0.0.6-1.fc42.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmplc6myy3v')] checks: 32, packages: 2
python3-binary-manager.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/binman/fip_util.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 python3-binary-manager.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/binman/main.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 python3-binary-manager.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary binman 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 10 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.4 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1
python3-binary-manager.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/binman/fip_util.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 python3-binary-manager.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/binman/main.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 python3-binary-manager.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary binman 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 6 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/b/binary-manager/binary-manag... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : dab0af17e78d4d9db17f4ad1cd7da264d3e3904df20813553c3fd6533724d560 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : dab0af17e78d4d9db17f4ad1cd7da264d3e3904df20813553c3fd6533724d560
Requires -------- python3-binary-manager (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.13dist(dtoc) python3.13dist(libfdt) python3.13dist(u-boot-pylib) python3dist(jsonschema) python3dist(pycryptodomex) python3dist(pyyaml)
Provides -------- python3-binary-manager: python-binary-manager python3-binary-manager python3.13-binary-manager python3.13dist(binary-manager) python3dist(binary-manager)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n python-binary-manager Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, PHP, Ocaml, R, Haskell, SugarActivity, Perl, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316566
Tom.Rix@amd.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(davide@cavalca.na | |me)
--- Comment #3 from Tom.Rix@amd.com --- Can you fix this issue ? python3-binary-manager.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/binman/fip_util.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 python3-binary-manager.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/binman/main.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316566
Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(davide@cavalca.na | |me) |
--- Comment #4 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-binary-manager/python-binary... SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-binary-manager/python-binary...
Changelog: - drop unnecessary shebangs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316566
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8471368 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316566
Tom.Rix@amd.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #6 from Tom.Rix@amd.com --- Thanks for the change. Approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316566
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-binary-manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316566
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-8757c557e0 (python-binary-manager-0.0.6-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-8757c557e0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316566
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2025-01-04 23:16:53
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-8757c557e0 (python-binary-manager-0.0.6-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com