[Bug 2236138] New: Review Request: python-pyroaring - Fast and lightweight set for unsigned 32 bits integers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2236138
Bug ID: 2236138 Summary: Review Request: python-pyroaring - Fast and lightweight set for unsigned 32 bits integers Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: gui1ty@penguinpee.nl QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gui1ty/reviews/fedora-raw... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gui1ty/reviews/fedora-raw... Description: An efficient and light-weight ordered set of 32 bits integers. This is a Python wrapper for the C library CRoaring. Fedora Account System Username: gui1ty
Copr Build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/gui1ty/reviews/build/6355923/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2236138
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/Ezibenro | |c/PyRoaringBitMap
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6355962 (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=2236138
Mathieu Bridon bochecha@daitauha.fr changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bochecha@daitauha.fr Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #2 from Mathieu Bridon bochecha@daitauha.fr --- Ok, here goes nothing... Do note that this is my first review since my "accident" in 2020, so I'm completely out of the game and I might be doing mistakes, but fedora-review hadthis to say:
==========
Issues:
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. -> you didn't install the LICENSE file at all
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. Note: python3-cython0.29 is deprecated, you must not depend on it. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/deprecating-packages/
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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. [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. -> you didn't install the LICENSE file at all [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 17948 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]: 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]: 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?) [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: [-]: 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-pyroaring [?]: 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. [?]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: [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.
===== 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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-pyroaring-0.4.2-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm python-pyroaring-debugsource-0.4.2-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm python-pyroaring-0.4.2-1.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/tmp9er14mi0')] checks: 31, packages: 3
===================================================== 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 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-pyroaring: /usr/lib64/python3.12/site-packages/pyroaring.cpython-312-x86_64-linux-gnu.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/pyroaring/pyroaring-0.4.2.t... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1413ab1db044032eac11ed7e9b52e93ebc26f637b299f8047ee46b03c2d828b2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1413ab1db044032eac11ed7e9b52e93ebc26f637b299f8047ee46b03c2d828b2
Requires -------- python3-pyroaring (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) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.4)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH)
python-pyroaring-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- python3-pyroaring: python-pyroaring python3-pyroaring python3-pyroaring(x86-64) python3.12-pyroaring python3.12dist(pyroaring) python3dist(pyroaring)
python-pyroaring-debugsource: python-pyroaring-debugsource python-pyroaring-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2236138 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Perl, PHP, SugarActivity, R, Haskell, Ocaml, Java, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2236138
--- Comment #3 from Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl --- (In reply to Mathieu Bridon from comment #2)
Ok, here goes nothing... Do note that this is my first review since my "accident" in 2020, so I'm completely out of the game and I might be doing mistakes, but fedora-review hadthis to say:
No worries. We go through it together.
Issues:
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. -> you didn't install the LICENSE file at all
It is installed automagically by the Python RPM macros:
rpm -q --licensefiles -p python3-pyroaring-0.4.2-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm warning: python3-pyroaring-0.4.2-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm: Header V4 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID decc5810: NOKEY /usr/lib64/python3.12/site-packages/pyroaring-0.4.2.dist-info/LICENSE
Package Review
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
- Dist tag is present.
That's save to ignore.
- Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. Note: python3-cython0.29 is deprecated, you must not depend on it. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/deprecating-packages/
Well, since the package doesn't build with the newer Cython, I'd say that's permissible. But I'll check with Python folks to make sure.
===== MUST items =====
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. -> you didn't install the LICENSE file at all
See above.
[?]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used.
That's a [-], since gpgverify is not used. Some projects use it. In that case the sources should be verified.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
I guess I could do a scratch build and see if it builds on all archs:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=105533659
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2236138
--- Comment #4 from Mathieu Bridon bochecha@daitauha.fr --- Alright, so I didn't know those new automatic macros as they didn't exist back in my days or at least weren't commonly used...
Thank you for addressing all my worries, and especially for doing the scratch build so.I could see it build on all arches :)
This package is now approved. 😍
I forgot, do I need to set the bug in a specific state or give it a flag now? Sorry :(
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2236138
--- Comment #5 from Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl --- (In reply to Mathieu Bridon from comment #4)
Alright, so I didn't know those new automatic macros as they didn't exist back in my days or at least weren't commonly used...
Thank you for addressing all my worries, and especially for doing the scratch build so.I could see it build on all arches :)
This package is now approved. 😍
I forgot, do I need to set the bug in a specific state or give it a flag now? Sorry :(
No worries. There's a couple of steps you need to take to approve this properly:
1. Take the bug and set the status to ASSIGNED (e.g. assign it to yourself) 2. Set the fedora-review flag to '+'
For a more detailed description of the package review process see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Review_Proc...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2236138
Mathieu Bridon bochecha@daitauha.fr changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2236138
Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |bochecha@daitauha.fr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2236138
--- 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-pyroaring
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2236138
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-1db2561a5f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-1db2561a5f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2236138
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2023-08-31 13:40:34
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-1db2561a5f 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