https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2061570
Bug ID: 2061570 Summary: Review Request: python-primecountpy - Python Primecount wrapper Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: loganjerry@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-primecountpy/python-primecountpy.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-primecountpy/python-primecountpy-0.1.... Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: This package provides a Cython interface to the C++ library primecount.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2061570
Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |sanjay.ankur@gmail.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |sanjay.ankur@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2061570
Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mhroncok@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- Advanced Python macro-fu:
The BuildRequires (such as pip, setuptools, wheel) might be better generated (but I seem to recall that you know that, but prefer not to).
PYTHONPATH=$(ls -1d $PWD/build/lib.*) -> PYTHONPATH=%{pyproject_build_lib} (note that this macro is provisional, do report problems if you find them)
#%%check -> you can at least do %pyporject_check_import (requires %pypoject_save_files).
The LICENSE is not marked as LICENSE, consider using %pypoject_save_files and -f %{pyproject_files} to have this handled by the macros.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2061570
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Thank you, Miro. I have made the changes you suggested except for generating the BuildRequires. You are correct: I prefer not to do that. I like having the ability to grep BuildRequires.
New URLs: Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-primecountpy/python-primecountpy.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-primecountpy/python-primecountpy-0.1....
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2061570
--- Comment #3 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com --- Looks very good. A few things to check:
Package Review ==============
- doc subpackage needs to include license file - -p0 can be removed from autosetup since no patches are currently included
- the sphinx docs are included and probably need unbundling of the js and fonts and all that. (I no longer build the sphinx docs because of this myself :/)
$ rpm -ql -p ./python-primecountpy-doc-0.1.0-2.fc37.noarch.rpm /usr/share/doc/python3-primecountpy /usr/share/doc/python3-primecountpy/html /usr/share/doc/python3-primecountpy/html/.buildinfo /usr/share/doc/python3-primecountpy/html/_sources /usr/share/doc/python3-primecountpy/html/_sources/index.rst.txt /usr/share/doc/python3-primecountpy/html/_sources/installation.md.txt /usr/share/doc/python3-primecountpy/html/_sources/modules /usr/share/doc/python3-primecountpy/html/_sources/modules/primecountpy.primecount.rst.txt /usr/share/doc/python3-primecountpy/html/_static /usr/share/doc/python3-primecountpy/html/_static/alabaster.css /usr/share/doc/python3-primecountpy/html/_static/basic.css /usr/share/doc/python3-primecountpy/html/_static/custom.css /usr/share/doc/python3-primecountpy/html/_static/doctools.js /usr/share/doc/python3-primecountpy/html/_static/documentation_options.js /usr/share/doc/python3-primecountpy/html/_static/file.png /usr/share/doc/python3-primecountpy/html/_static/jquery-3.5.1.js /usr/share/doc/python3-primecountpy/html/_static/jquery.js /usr/share/doc/python3-primecountpy/html/_static/language_data.js /usr/share/doc/python3-primecountpy/html/_static/minus.png /usr/share/doc/python3-primecountpy/html/_static/plus.png /usr/share/doc/python3-primecountpy/html/_static/pygments.css /usr/share/doc/python3-primecountpy/html/_static/searchtools.js /usr/share/doc/python3-primecountpy/html/_static/underscore-1.13.1.js /usr/share/doc/python3-primecountpy/html/_static/underscore.js /usr/share/doc/python3-primecountpy/html/genindex.html /usr/share/doc/python3-primecountpy/html/index.html /usr/share/doc/python3-primecountpy/html/installation.html /usr/share/doc/python3-primecountpy/html/modules /usr/share/doc/python3-primecountpy/html/modules/primecountpy.primecount.html /usr/share/doc/python3-primecountpy/html/objects.inv /usr/share/doc/python3-primecountpy/html/py-modindex.html /usr/share/doc/python3-primecountpy/html/search.html /usr/share/doc/python3-primecountpy/html/searchindex.js
- rpmlint says: python-primecountpy-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/python3-primecountpy/html/.buildinfo We can remove this file.
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [-]: 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.
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", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/asinha/dump/fedora-reviews/2061570-python- primecountpy/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. The license needs to be included in the doc subpackage:
$ rpm -ql --licensefiles -p ./python3-primecountpy-0.1.0-2.fc37.x86_64.rpm /usr/lib64/python3.10/site-packages/primecountpy-0.1.0.dist-info/AUTHORS /usr/lib64/python3.10/site-packages/primecountpy-0.1.0.dist-info/LICENSE
$ rpm -ql --licensefiles -p ./python-primecountpy-doc-0.1.0-2.fc37.noarch.rpm
[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. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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. [!]: 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]: 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. ^ Includes distinfo
[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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-primecountpy [x]: Package functions as described. ^ Import check passes
[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. [-]: 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: [-]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Meh, ran manually:
$ rpmlint *rpm ../srpm-unpacked/python-primecountpy.spec ======================================================== rpmlint session starts ======================================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 checks: 32, packages: 4
python-primecountpy-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/python3-primecountpy/html/.buildinfo ========================= 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 3.1 s ===
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
...
Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-primecountpy: /usr/lib64/python3.10/site-packages/primecountpy/primecount.cpython-310-x86_64-linux-gnu.so ^ False positive.
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/dimpase/primecountpy/archive/v0.1.0/primecountpy-0.1.0.ta... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 42835b1ddfc2e95c2a48118c3a871d650146aae92a63dd4564dd1be171d09c15 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 42835b1ddfc2e95c2a48118c3a871d650146aae92a63dd4564dd1be171d09c15
Requires -------- python3-primecountpy (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libprimecount.so.7()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) python(abi) python3.10dist(cysignals) python3.10dist(cython) rtld(GNU_HASH)
python-primecountpy-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
python-primecountpy-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- python3-primecountpy: python-primecountpy python3-primecountpy python3-primecountpy(x86-64) python3.10-primecountpy python3.10dist(primecountpy) python3dist(primecountpy)
python-primecountpy-doc: python-primecountpy-doc
python-primecountpy-debugsource: python-primecountpy-debugsource python-primecountpy-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2061570 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, Ocaml, R, C/C++, PHP, SugarActivity, fonts, Java, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2061570
--- Comment #4 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Changes: - The LICENSE file has been added to the doc subpackage - The python3-sphinx_rtd_theme package does not bundle fonts, but it does include references to local font files. I have added the necessary Requires to the doc subpackage. Since I made those changes to python3-sphinx_rtd_theme myself, you would think I would have remembered this. In my defense, that was 15 months ago. :-) - The hidden .buildinfo file has been removed from the doc subpackage - Rather than attempt to unbundle js-jquery and js-underscore, and possibly end up with incompatible versions, I have added Provides: bundled(...) for both. I can point to a number of other python doc packages that do likewise. Is that good enough?
New URLs:
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-primecountpy/python-primecountpy.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-primecountpy/python-primecountpy-0.1....
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2061570
--- Comment #5 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com --- Yes, bundling them with the necessary provides should be fine. I think that the License field may need to be updated to include the licenses of the bundled bits, though?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2061570
--- Comment #6 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- The license of the doc subpackage has been set to "GPLv3 and MIT" with an explanatory comment above it. New URLs:
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-primecountpy/python-primecountpy.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-primecountpy/python-primecountpy-0.1....
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2061570
Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com --- LGTM: XXX APPROVED XXX
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2061570
--- Comment #8 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Thanks for the review, Ankur.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2061570
--- Comment #9 from Tomas Hrcka thrcka@redhat.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-primecountpy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2061570
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-2569b55c7b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-2569b55c7b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2061570
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-2569b55c7b has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-2569b55c7b` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-2569b55c7b
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=2061570
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-2569b55c7b has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-2569b55c7b` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-2569b55c7b
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=2061570
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2022-05-07 04:12:00
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-2569b55c7b has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com