[Bug 1077669] New: Review Request: python-singledispatch - This library brings functools.singledispatch from Python 3.4 to Python 2.6-3.3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077669
Bug ID: 1077669 Summary: Review Request: python-singledispatch - This library brings functools.singledispatch from Python 3.4 to Python 2.6-3.3 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mrunge@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-singledispatch.spec SRPM URL: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-singledispatch-3.4.0.2-1.fc20.src... Description: PEP 443 proposed to expose a mechanism in the functools standard library module in Python 3.4 that provides a simple form of generic programming known as single-dispatch generic functions.
This library is a backport of this functionality to Python 2.6 - 3.3.
Fedora Account System Username: mrunge
[mrunge@sofja SPECS (master)]$ rpmlint /home/mrunge/rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-singledispatch-3.4.0.2-1.fc20.src.rpm /home/mrunge/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/python-singledispatch-3.4.0.2-1.fc20.noarch.rpm ./python-singledispatch.spec python-singledispatch.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) functools -> functions python-singledispatch.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US functools -> functions python-singledispatch.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backport -> back port, back-port, backpacker python-singledispatch.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) functools -> functions python-singledispatch.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US functools -> functions python-singledispatch.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backport -> back port, back-port, backpacker 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077669
Matthias Runge mrunge@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1077661
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077661 [Bug 1077661] missing requirement singledispatch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077669
Pádraig Brady p@draigbrady.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |p@draigbrady.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |p@draigbrady.com
--- Comment #1 from Pádraig Brady p@draigbrady.com --- We want this for el6 too so we'll probably need the macro definitions at the top for python2_sitelib etc. if rhel6
If a %check is easy to add it would be worth it
There is no included LICENSE file, so upstream should be notified to include it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077669
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Runge mrunge@redhat.com --- added %{!?__python2:%global __python2 %{__python}}
and a check section.
Spec URL: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-singledispatch.spec SRPM URL: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-singledispatch-3.4.0.2-2.fc20.src...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077669
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Runge mrunge@redhat.com --- (so: epel6 support added)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077669
Pádraig Brady p@draigbrady.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Pádraig Brady p@draigbrady.com --- is python2_sitelib supported on el6? fedora guidelines have a difference set.
# see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros %if 0%{?rhel} && 0%{?rhel} <= 6 %{!?__python2: %global __python2 /usr/bin/python2} %{!?python2_sitelib: %global python2_sitelib %(%{__python2} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib())")} %{!?python2_sitearch: %global python2_sitearch %(%{__python2} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib(1))")} %endif
Anyway nothing is blocking here so approved. thanks!
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]: 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 %doc. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/padraig/1077669-python- singledispatch/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. [x]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist [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: [!]: 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. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: 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]: 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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-singledispatch-3.4.0.2-2fc20.noarch.rpm python-singledispatch-3.4.0.2-2fc20.src.rpm python-singledispatch.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) functools -> functions python-singledispatch.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US functools -> functions python-singledispatch.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backport -> back port, back-port, backpacker python-singledispatch.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) functools -> functions python-singledispatch.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US functools -> functions python-singledispatch.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backport -> back port, back-port, backpacker 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-singledispatch python-singledispatch.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) functools -> functions python-singledispatch.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US functools -> functions python-singledispatch.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backport -> back port, back-port, backpacker 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- python-singledispatch (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-six
Provides -------- python-singledispatch: python-singledispatch
Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/s/singledispatch/singledispatch-3.4.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4bdd0307cae0d13abb0546df1ab85201b9067090d191e33387e27e1463a7bfd5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4bdd0307cae0d13abb0546df1ab85201b9067090d191e33387e27e1463a7bfd5
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1077669 Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077669
Matthias Runge mrunge@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #5 from Matthias Runge mrunge@redhat.com --- Thank you very much for the quick review!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-singledispatch Short Description: This library brings functools.singledispatch from Python 3.4 to Python 2.6-3.3 Owners: mrunge Branches: f20 el6 epel7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077669
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077669
--- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077669
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077669
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-singledispatch-3.4.0.2-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-singledispatch-3.4.0.2-2.fc20
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077669
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-singledispatch-3.4.0.2-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-singledispatch-3.4.0.2-2.el6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077669
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- Package python-singledispatch-3.4.0.2-2.fc20: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing python-singledispatch-3.4.0.2-2.fc20' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-4060/python-singledispat... then log in and leave karma (feedback).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077669
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |python-singledispatch-3.4.0 | |.2-2.el6 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2014-04-03 13:40:27
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-singledispatch-3.4.0.2-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077669
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|python-singledispatch-3.4.0 |python-singledispatch-3.4.0 |.2-2.el6 |.2-2.fc20
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-singledispatch-3.4.0.2-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla