[Bug 2161040] New: Review Request: python-pylru - A least recently used (LRU) cache for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2161040
Bug ID: 2161040 Summary: Review Request: python-pylru - A least recently used (LRU) cache for Python Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: pikachu.2014@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/melmorabity/octoprint/fed... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/melmorabity/octoprint/fed... Description: Pylru implements a true LRU cache along with several support classes. The cache is efficient and written in pure Python. It works with Python 2.6+ including the 3.x series. Basic operations (lookup, insert, delete) all run in a constant amount of time. Pylru provides a cache class with a simple dict interface. It also provides classes to wrap any object that has a dict interface with a cache. Both write-through and write-back semantics are supported. Pylru also provides classes to wrap functions in a similar way, including a function decorator. Fedora Account System Username: melmorabity
Copr builds: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/melmorabity/octoprint/build/5195263/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2161040
Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2014@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2161048
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2161048 [Bug 2161048] Review Request: octoprint - The snappy web interface for your 3D printer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2161040
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5238017 (failed)
Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.
- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review
Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2014@gmail.com has canceled Package Review package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org's request for Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2014@gmail.com's needinfo: Bug 2161040: Review Request: python-pylru - A least recently used (LRU) cache for Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2161040
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2161040
Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2014@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags|needinfo?(pikachu.2014@gmai | |l.com) |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2161040
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lemenkov@gmail.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |lemenkov@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com --- I'll review it
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2161040
--- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com --- Mock build is still failing. Could you please fix it?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2161040
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com --- O(In reply to Peter Lemenkov from comment #4)
Mock build is still failing. Could you please fix it?
Sorry, this was an issue with my system. I don't see any issues so here is my formal
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 (GPL-2.0-or-later). [x]: Package owns all directories that it creates. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package does not contain desktop file (not a GUI application). [-]: No development files. [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. [-]: The package is not a rename of another package. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package does not contain systemd file(s). [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: No large documentation 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 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]: 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]: 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]: 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). [?]: I did not test if the package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged (1.2.1). [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources weren't verified with gpgverify (upstream dies not publish signatures. [?]: I did not test if the package compiles and builds 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.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-pylru-1.2.1-1.fc42.noarch.rpm python-pylru-1.2.1-1.fc42.src.rpm ========================================================================================================================================= rpmlint session starts ======================================================================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.5.0 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpatrxigtl')] checks: 32, packages: 2
==================================================================================================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.4 s ===================================================================================================
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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: 32, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jlhutch/pylru/archive/v1.2.1/pylru-1.2.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8d8d5ac67c5567137c53cf505a851a0c125666bd64402a111f141ae35db00859 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8d8d5ac67c5567137c53cf505a851a0c125666bd64402a111f141ae35db00859
Requires -------- python3-pylru (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi)
Provides -------- python3-pylru: python-pylru python3-pylru python3.13-pylru python3.13dist(pylru) python3dist(pylru)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2161040 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: fonts, Ocaml, R, Haskell, SugarActivity, C/C++, Perl, PHP, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
This package is
================ === APPROVED === ================
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com