[Bug 2119987] New: Review Request: python-icapclient3 - Python3 module for creating ICAP clients
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2119987
Bug ID: 2119987 Summary: Review Request: python-icapclient3 - Python3 module for creating ICAP clients Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: negativo17@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/python-icapclient3.spec SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/python-icapclient3-1.2.1-1.fc36.src.rpm Description: A Python3 module for creating ICAP clients. The module API is somewhat inspired by the httplib python module.
This module is written in pure C, and uses the C-ICAP library to handle the ICAP protocol. Fedora Account System Username: slaanesh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2119987
Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Link ID| |Red Hat Bugzilla 2119983
--- Comment #1 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- Depends on: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2119983
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2119987
Maíra Canal mairacanal@riseup.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mairacanal@riseup.net
--- Comment #2 from Maíra Canal mairacanal@riseup.net --- Hi Simone,
Just a few nitpicks on your spec.
%{?!python3_pkgversion:%global python3_pkgversion 3}
Using the %{python3_pkgversion} macro instead of using 3 on the BuildRequires packages, makes it harder to read. Usually, it is a better practice to drop the %{python3_pkgversion} macro.
%global srcname icapclient3
Another readability nit, setting and using this makes the spec file harder to read. Using the literal name makes it easier to read. Moreover, sometimes you don't even use this macro and write "icapclient3" literally.
%{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{srcname}}
This is deprecated and shouldn't be used. Check the note at the end of https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python_201x/#_the_...
NOTE: I'm not a packager yet and currently looking for sponsorship.
Best Regards, - Maíra Canal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2119987
Frank Crawford frank@crawford.emu.id.au changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora_prioritized_bug? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2119987
Frank Crawford frank@crawford.emu.id.au changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |frank@crawford.emu.id.au
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2119987
Frank Crawford frank@crawford.emu.id.au changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora_prioritized_bug? |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2119987
Frank Crawford frank@crawford.emu.id.au changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(negativo17@gmail. | |com)
--- Comment #3 from Frank Crawford frank@crawford.emu.id.au --- @negativo17@gmail.com I've done a review, and everything pretty much passes. There are just three items I want to confirm before publishing it:
[ ]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed
I don't believe there is any bundled(gnulib), and this is just a bug in fedora-review. Is that correct?
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include
I know you have included the LICENSE file from upstream, and also that there has been no new release for some years, but have you or can you add an issue upstream for it to be included in any future release.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
I assume there is no suitable checks and it is unlikely ever to occur. Am I correct about that?
Once I get confirmation on those points, I'll publish the review and we should be good to go.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2119987
--- Comment #4 from Frank Crawford frank@crawford.emu.id.au --- P.S. I assume the response to Maíra Canal is because you have set up the spec file to be compatible with EPEL, including even EPEL7?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2119987
Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(negativo17@gmail. | |com) |
--- Comment #5 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- Sorry for the late reply I was on holiday.
(In reply to Frank Crawford from comment #3)
[ ]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed
I don't believe there is any bundled(gnulib), and this is just a bug in fedora-review. Is that correct?
I assume it's a bug yes, it's only some python files.
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include
I know you have included the LICENSE file from upstream, and also that there has been no new release for some years, but have you or can you add an issue upstream for it to be included in any future release.
Done: https://github.com/fim/icapclient3/issues/10
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
I assume there is no suitable checks and it is unlikely ever to occur. Am I correct about that?
Correct.
(In reply to Frank Crawford from comment #4)
P.S. I assume the response to Maíra Canal is because you have set up the spec file to be compatible with EPEL, including even EPEL7?
Well we built c-icap and c-icap modules also for EPEL 7, so why not. I'll make some tests that it builds everywhere before posting an updated SPEC file.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2119987
--- Comment #6 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/python-icapclient3.spec SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/python-icapclient3-1.2.1-2.fc38.src.rpm
(In reply to Maíra Canal from comment #2)
%global srcname icapclient3
Another readability nit, setting and using this makes the spec file harder to read. Using the literal name makes it easier to read. Moreover, sometimes you don't even use this macro and write "icapclient3" literally.
I've left the srcname macro in, otherwise the shortcut of pypi_source in the Source URL will not work, it expects the srcname macro to be declared.
%{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{srcname}}
This is deprecated and shouldn't be used. Check the note at the end of https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python_201x/ #_the_py_provides_macro
Removed.
@frank@crawford.emu.id.au the SPEC file as is builds on EL9 and Fedora.
At work we use it also on EL8, I will make a different one for the EL7/EL8 branches after approval.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2119987
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/fim/icap | |client3
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6332602 (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=2119987
--- Comment #8 from Frank Crawford frank@crawford.emu.id.au --- Following my review:
[-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed
gnulib is not bundled and this is not required.
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
Issue is logged upstream to include license file, which is supplied separately in the git repo.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
No checks provided by upstream.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2119987
Frank Crawford frank@crawford.emu.id.au changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Frank Crawford frank@crawford.emu.id.au --- APPROVED: See review.
--- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed gnulib not installed or required. [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [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
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. Issue is logged upstream to include license file, which is supplied separately in the git repo. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-icapclient3 [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. No checks provided by upstream. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-icapclient3-1.2.1-2.fc40.x86_64.rpm python-icapclient3-debugsource-1.2.1-2.fc40.x86_64.rpm python-icapclient3-1.2.1-2.fc40.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmpeiq3k_oj')] checks: 31, packages: 3
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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: 31, packages: 2
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-icapclient3: /usr/lib64/python3.12/site-packages/icapclient.cpython-312-x86_64-linux-gnu.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/fim/icapclient3/master/LICENSE : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d62f065830aa3739cc031156b9690805c7b2e811b4a178c8b4acd8725d561c94 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d62f065830aa3739cc031156b9690805c7b2e811b4a178c8b4acd8725d561c94 https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/i/icapclient3/icapclient3-1.2... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5aaaba9fe7c796c082820634173f2452b670fbc98d264cd5aefe6e5116ccc076 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5aaaba9fe7c796c082820634173f2452b670fbc98d264cd5aefe6e5116ccc076
Requires -------- python3-icapclient3 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libicapapi.so.0()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH)
python-icapclient3-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- python3-icapclient3: python-icapclient3 python3-icapclient3 python3-icapclient3(x86-64) python3.12-icapclient3 python3.12dist(icapclient3) python3dist(icapclient3)
python-icapclient3-debugsource: python-icapclient3-debugsource python-icapclient3-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name python-icapclient3 --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: fonts, Ocaml, PHP, SugarActivity, Haskell, R, Java, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2119987
--- Comment #10 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- After quite some debugging at work, we could not make this Python library work with the upstream c-icap code.
Works fine with c-icap 0.5.10 but not with a current snapshot of master.
The only reason for importing this in Fedora/EPEL was for a check_icap Icinga/Nagios plugin, that uses this library in the background. Out of ideas, we've modified it to use c-icap-cli directly, making this library redundant.
Considering no activity since a couple of years on the project I'd suggest closing this down and not importing it, unless @frank@crawford.emu.id.au you'd still like to have it imported (and maybe fixed?).
Thanks.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2119987
--- Comment #11 from Frank Crawford frank@crawford.emu.id.au --- I'm not worried about this one, so if you want to drop it, feel free.
Frank
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2119987
Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |CANTFIX Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2023-09-05 14:36:49
--- Comment #12 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- Done, thanks. Will get back to squidclamav tomorrow.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com