[Bug 1379091] New: Review Request: python-QtPy - Provides an abstraction layer on top of the various Qt bindings (PyQt5, PyQt4 and PySide) and additional custom QWidgets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379091
Bug ID: 1379091 Summary: Review Request: python-QtPy - Provides an abstraction layer on top of the various Qt bindings (PyQt5, PyQt4 and PySide) and additional custom QWidgets Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: nonamedotc@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-QtPy/py... SRPM URL: https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-QtPy/py...
Description: tPy (pronounced ‘cutie pie’) is a small abstraction layer that lets you write applications using a single api call to either PyQt or PySide.
It provides support for PyQt5, PyQt4 and PySide using the PyQt5 layout (where the QtGui module has been split into QtGui and QtWidgets).
Basically, you write your code as if you were using PyQt5 but import qt from qtpy instead of PyQt5.
Fedora Account System Username: nonamedotc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379091
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |puntogil@libero.it
--- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- hi Source1: MIT_license.txt is useless ...? git source archive should be contains license file https://github.com/spyder-ide/qtpy/archive/v1.1.2/qtpy-1.1.2.tar.gz
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379091
--- Comment #2 from Mukundan Ragavan nonamedotc@gmail.com --- hmm ... pypi tarball does not have the license. I will fix these and upload new spec and srpm tomorrow.
sorry about the delay.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379091
--- Comment #3 from Mukundan Ragavan nonamedotc@gmail.com --- Also fixed most issues .. hopefully.
Spec URL: https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-QtPy/py... SRPM URL: https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-QtPy/py...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379091
--- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- Please, use https://github.com/spyder-ide/qtpy/archive/v1.1.2/qtpy-1.1.2.tar.gz Otherwise you should use the approach shown here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL#Gi...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379091
--- Comment #5 from Mukundan Ragavan nonamedotc@gmail.com --- I am using this format ...
Source0: https://github.com/OWNER/%%7Bname%7D/archive/%%7Bcommit0%7D.tar.gz basically ...
also, this is the same tarball -
$ sha256sum ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/v1.1.2.tar.gz qtpy-1.1.2.tar.gz 7cffde4f4baef3a34076aeea93e18abc861f89fc1f210b6bc39c502526d5d9f9 /home/mukundan/rpmbuild/SOURCES/v1.1.2.tar.gz 7cffde4f4baef3a34076aeea93e18abc861f89fc1f210b6bc39c502526d5d9f9 qtpy-1.1.2.tar.gz
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379091
--- Comment #6 from Mukundan Ragavan nonamedotc@gmail.com --- Well, changed Source URL anyway ... :)
Spec URL: https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-QtPy/py... SRPM URL: https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-QtPy/py...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379091
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |puntogil@libero.it Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379091
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #7 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 24 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1379091-python- QtPy/licensecheck.txt License: MIT and BSD
License: BSD. ./qtpy/_patch/qcombobox.py
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. ./qtpy/_patch/qcombobox.py PyQt4 ... ? [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. [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: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [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 python2-QtPy , python3-QtPy [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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. [?]: %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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python2-QtPy-1.1.2-3.fc26.noarch.rpm python3-QtPy-1.1.2-3.fc26.noarch.rpm python-QtPy-1.1.2-3.fc26.src.rpm python2-QtPy.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-QtPy.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-QtPy.noarch: W: no-documentation python2-QtPy.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Requires -------- python3-QtPy (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi)
python2-QtPy (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi)
Provides -------- python3-QtPy: python3-QtPy python3.5dist(qtpy) python3dist(qtpy)
python2-QtPy: python-QtPy python2-QtPy python2.7dist(qtpy) python2dist(qtpy)
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/spyder-ide/qtpy/archive/v1.1.2/qtpy-1.1.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7cffde4f4baef3a34076aeea93e18abc861f89fc1f210b6bc39c502526d5d9f9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7cffde4f4baef3a34076aeea93e18abc861f89fc1f210b6bc39c502526d5d9f9
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1379091 --plugins Python -m fedora-rawhide-i386 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379091
--- Comment #8 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- Maybe you could add %doc CHANGELOG.md README.md for each pythonX sub packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379091
--- Comment #9 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- have time for this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380140 ? thanks in advance
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379091
--- Comment #10 from Mukundan Ragavan nonamedotc@gmail.com --- (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #9)
have time for this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380140 ? thanks in advance
Yes of couse. Taken,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379091
--- Comment #11 from Mukundan Ragavan nonamedotc@gmail.com --- (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #8)
Maybe you could add %doc CHANGELOG.md README.md for each pythonX sub packages
done.
Spec URL: https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-QtPy/py... SRPM URL: https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-QtPy/py...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379091
--- Comment #12 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- Remain these problems: [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 24 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1379091-python- QtPy/licensecheck.txt License: MIT and BSD
License: BSD. ./qtpy/_patch/qcombobox.py
[?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. ./qtpy/_patch/qcombobox.py PyQt4 ... ?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379091
--- Comment #13 from Mukundan Ragavan nonamedotc@gmail.com --- (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #12)
Remain these problems: [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 24 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1379091-python- QtPy/licensecheck.txt License: MIT and BSD
License: BSD. ./qtpy/_patch/qcombobox.py
Fixed.
[?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. ./qtpy/_patch/qcombobox.py PyQt4 ... ?
This is not a bundled library. This is code that spyder folks adapted from qt-helpers.
Please see the relevant sources here -
qtpy; qcombobox.py
https://github.com/spyder-ide/qtpy/blob/master/qtpy/_patch/qcombobox.py
qt-helpers
https://github.com/glue-viz/qt-helpers/blob/master/qt_helpers.py
So, this should not be an issue.
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Spec URL: https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-QtPy/py... SRPM URL: https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-QtPy/py...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379091
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379091
--- Comment #14 from Mukundan Ragavan nonamedotc@gmail.com --- Thanks for the review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379091
--- Comment #15 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-QtPy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379091
Mukundan Ragavan nonamedotc@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2016-10-02 20:07:54
--- Comment #16 from Mukundan Ragavan nonamedotc@gmail.com --- built on rawhide.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla