[Bug 2150779] New: Review Request: python-jupyter-lsp - Multi-Language Server WebSocket proxy for Jupyter Notebook/Lab server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2150779
Bug ID: 2150779 Summary: Review Request: python-jupyter-lsp - Multi-Language Server WebSocket proxy for Jupyter Notebook/Lab server Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: lbalhar@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://lbalhar.fedorapeople.org/python-jupyter-lsp.spec SRPM URL: https://lbalhar.fedorapeople.org/python-jupyter-lsp-1.5.1-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: Multi-Language Server WebSocket proxy for your Jupyter notebook or lab server. For Python 3.6+. Fedora Account System Username: lbalhar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2150779
Karolina Surma ksurma@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ksurma@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |ksurma@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Karolina Surma ksurma@redhat.com --- In the build.log I see this part:
" /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/setuptools/command/build_py.py:202: SetuptoolsDeprecationWarning: Installing 'jupyter_lsp.etc' as data is deprecated, please list it in `packages`. !! ############################ # Package would be ignored # ############################ Python recognizes 'jupyter_lsp.etc' as an importable package, but it is not listed in the `packages` configuration of setuptools. 'jupyter_lsp.etc' has been automatically added to the distribution only because it may contain data files, but this behavior is likely to change in future versions of setuptools (and therefore is considered deprecated). Please make sure that 'jupyter_lsp.etc' is included as a package by using the `packages` configuration field or the proper discovery methods (for example by using `find_namespace_packages(...)`/`find_namespace:` instead of `find_packages(...)`/`find:`). You can read more about "package discovery" and "data files" on setuptools documentation page. !!"
It'd be good to raise this issue upstream.
Also, rpmlint reports an error: python3-jupyter-lsp.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/jupyter_lsp/specs/base.py 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2150779
--- Comment #2 from Lumír Balhar lbalhar@redhat.com --- Deprecation warning reported: https://github.com/jupyter-lsp/jupyterlab-lsp/issues/885 Fix for the empty file proposed: https://github.com/jupyter-lsp/jupyterlab-lsp/pull/884
I'm removing the empty file in the specfile so we can continue.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2150779
Karolina Surma ksurma@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #3 from Karolina Surma ksurma@redhat.com --- One more nitpick: the final RPM contains the test files, maybe there's no need to ship them?
Package APPROVED.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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: "BSD 3-Clause License", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License". 65 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ksurma/tmp/2150779-python-jupyter- lsp/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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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. [-]: 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. [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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2150779
--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-jupyter-lsp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2150779
Lumír Balhar lbalhar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Status|POST |CLOSED Last Closed| |2023-01-05 09:37:11
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com