[Bug 2232629] New: Review Request: python-autocommand - Generate argparse parsers from function signatures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232629
Bug ID: 2232629 Summary: Review Request: python-autocommand - Generate argparse parsers from function signatures Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: omosnacek@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/omos/fedora-package-review/-/raw/1b6e584ee636195b1b0ebc59... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/omos/python-jaraco-text/f... Description: A library to automatically generate and run simple argparse parsers from function signatures Fedora Account System Username: omos
COPR build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/omos/python-jaraco-text/build/630808...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232629
Ondrej Mosnáček omosnacek@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Blocks| |2232234
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232234 [Bug 2232234] Please update the package to the latest upstream version
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232629
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/Lucretie | |l/%{projname}
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6313497 (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=2232629
Dan Radez dradez@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dradez@redhat.com
--- Comment #2 from Dan Radez dradez@redhat.com --- 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: "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/dradez/workspace/fedora-scm/reviews/2232629-python- autocommand/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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 14122 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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: [?]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [?]: 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. [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: [-]: 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. [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. [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-autocommand-2.2.2-1.fc40.noarch.rpm python-autocommand-2.2.2-1.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/tmpd4y_wb5o')] checks: 31, packages: 2
============================================================================ 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 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: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/a/autocommand/autocommand-2.2... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 878de9423c5596491167225c2a455043c3130fb5b7286ac83443d45e74955f34 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 878de9423c5596491167225c2a455043c3130fb5b7286ac83443d45e74955f34
Requires -------- python3-autocommand (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi)
Provides -------- python3-autocommand: python-autocommand python3-autocommand python3.12-autocommand python3.12dist(autocommand) python3dist(autocommand)
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/dradez/workspace/fedora-scm/reviews/2232629-python-autocommand/srpm/python-autocommand.spec 2023-08-23 10:01:32.916576584 -0400 +++ /home/dradez/workspace/fedora-scm/reviews/2232629-python-autocommand/srpm-unpacked/python-autocommand.spec 2023-08-15 20:00:00.000000000 -0400 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.3.5) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + %global modname autocommand %global projname %{modname} @@ -57,3 +67,4 @@
%changelog -%autochangelog +* Wed Aug 16 2023 John Doe packager@example.com - 2.2.2-1 +- Uncommitted changes
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2232629 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Haskell, PHP, Perl, Java, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, R, C/C++ Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232629
Ondrej Mosnáček omosnacek@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(dradez@redhat.com | |)
--- Comment #3 from Ondrej Mosnáček omosnacek@gmail.com --- Same as https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232628#c3 applies here - can you please elaborate on what you think needs changing before approving? Or just approve the reviews?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232629
Dan Radez dradez@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(dradez@redhat.com | |) |
--- Comment #4 from Dan Radez dradez@redhat.com --- I don't think I have access to approve the reviews. I'm only a packager and not a proven packager.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232629
Dan Radez dradez@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |dradez@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review+ Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |COMPLETED Last Closed| |2023-09-06 16:28:45
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232629
Ondrej Mosnáček omosnacek@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|COMPLETED |--- Keywords| |Reopened
--- Comment #5 from Ondrej Mosnáček omosnacek@gmail.com --- (Reopening, since review tickets should be closed only after the package is introduced in Fedora.)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232629
--- Comment #6 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-autocommand
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232629
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-5c003ab9cc has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-5c003ab9cc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232629
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed|2023-09-06 16:28:45 |2023-09-07 08:10:41
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-5c003ab9cc has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com