https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249749
Bug ID: 1249749 Summary: Review Request: pyjf3 - Python module for Japanese text manipulation Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: williamjmorenor@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/pyjf3.spec SRPM URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/pyjf3-0.3-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: Python module for Japanese text manipulation Fedora Account System Username: williamjmorenor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249749
William Moreno williamjmorenor@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1249786
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249786 [Bug 1249786] Review Request: kaaedit- Console text editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249749
--- Comment #1 from William Moreno williamjmorenor@gmail.com --- Tests builds:
https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/williamjmorenor/fedora-review-test/moni...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249749
René Ribaud rene.ribaud@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rene.ribaud@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |rene.ribaud@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249749
--- Comment #2 from René Ribaud rene.ribaud@gmail.com --- Hello William,
Here are the results of my first review :
1- The package is not following package naming guidelines. Extracted from the doc : "So all python3 modules MUST have python3 in their name." So naming should be python3-pyjf3
2- The source URL in the package is not valid. (folder k instead of p)
3- I think you should leverage a bit your .spec from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python example, using macros definition at the beginning, etc...
4- Regarding the license, as a short term solution, you should extract the README.rst Copyright section and place it into a license.rst file in %prep part (wih sed). Then introduce a %license directive in the %files part referencing license.rst. A better option now or for the next package will be to request a dedicated file with the license to upstream developer.
5- To my mind BuildRequires: python3-setuptools is not required.
6- Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.4/site- packages/__pycache__(python3-setuptools, python3-pytest, python3-six, python3-libs) Refine %files to use %{python3_sitelib}/__pycache__/pyjf3.* and %{python3_sitelib}/pyjf3* in %files to avoid that.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249749
William Moreno williamjmorenor@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: pyjf3 - |Review Request: |Python module for Japanese |python3-pyjf3 - Python |text manipulation |module for Japanese text | |manipulation
--- Comment #3 from William Moreno williamjmorenor@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/python3-pyjf3.spec SRPM URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/python3-pyjf3-0.3-1.fc22.src...
Changelog: - 0.3-2 - Update Python Macros - Patch license file
Upstream issue to include a separate license text https://github.com/atsuoishimoto/pyjf3/issues/1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249749
--- Comment #4 from René Ribaud rene.ribaud@gmail.com --- Can you check the SRPM link, it seems not ok. I have a 404. By the way for next packages, do not change Spec URL and SRPM URL because it prevents fedora-review tool to work fine.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249749
--- Comment #5 from William Moreno williamjmorenor@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/python3-pyjf3.spec SRPM URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/python3-pyjf3-0.3-2.fc22.src...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249749
--- Comment #6 from William Moreno williamjmorenor@gmail.com --- I got a error with mock but fedora-review fetch fine the spec and the src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249749
René Ribaud rene.ribaud@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from René Ribaud rene.ribaud@gmail.com --- Hello William,
Despite I would not do exactly the same way. Package looks good to me.
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: "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/uggla/rpmbuild/SPECS/1249749-python3-pyjf3/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]: 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]: 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: [x]: 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). [-]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: 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.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-pyjf3-0.3-2.fc24.noarch.rpm python3-pyjf3-0.3-2.fc24.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Requires -------- python3-pyjf3 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi)
Provides -------- python3-pyjf3: python3-pyjf3
Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/pyjf3/pyjf3-0.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4b179a74a636ec7c8d98d2f9c84205fc15de5b1fb34ff397c592ca32d43ddb6b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4b179a74a636ec7c8d98d2f9c84205fc15de5b1fb34ff397c592ca32d43ddb6b
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1249749 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 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=1249749
--- Comment #8 from William Moreno williamjmorenor@gmail.com --- Thanks for the review, this package is a requires for #1249786 can you help with this review, can you help me with that? I can review some packages for you in exchage for that.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249749
William Moreno williamjmorenor@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #9 from William Moreno williamjmorenor@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python3-pyjf3 Short Description: Python module for Japanese text manipulation Upstream URL: https://github.com/atsuoishimoto/pyjf3 Owners: williamjmorenor Branches: master f23 InitialCC: williamjmorenor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249749
--- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- This SCM request method has been deprecated. Please see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageDB_admin_requests.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249749
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249749
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python3-pyjf3-0.3-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-87b5b8064e
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249749
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249749
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python3-pyjf3-0.3-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update python3-pyjf3' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-87b5b8064e
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249749
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python3-pyjf3-0.3-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249749
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2015-10-31 22:47:20
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla