https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2359409
Bug ID: 2359409 Summary: Review Request: python-mutf8 - Fast MUTF-8 encoder & decoder Product: Fedora Version: rawhide OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: benson_muite@emailplus.org QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-mutf8.spec srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-mutf8-1.0.6-1.fc41.src.rpm
description: This package contains simple pure-python as well as C encoders and decoders for the MUTF-8 character encoding. In most cases, you can also parse the even-rarer CESU-8.
These days, you'll most likely encounter MUTF-8 when working on files or protocols related to the JVM. Strings in a Java .class file are encoded using MUTF-8, strings passed by the JNI, as well as strings exported by the object serializer.
This library was extracted from Lawu, a Python library for working with JVM class files.
fas: fed500
Reproducible: Always
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2359409
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |http://github.com/TkTech/mu | |tf8 Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8899666 (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=2359409
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2361639
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2361639 [Bug 2361639] Review Request: python-androguard - Reverse engineering and pentesting for Android applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2359409
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |lemenkov@gmail.com CC| |lemenkov@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com --- I'll review it
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2359409
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com --- I don't see any significant issues so here is my formal
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [-]: No need for separate -devel subpackage. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [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 (MIT). [x]: Package owns all directories that it creates. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format (autochangelog). [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package does not contain desktop file (not a GUI application). [-]: No need for separate -devel subpackage. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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]: 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]: 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: [-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: 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 (1.0.6). [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources weren't verified with gpgverify first in %prep (upstream does not publish signatures). [x]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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-mutf8-1.0.6-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm python-mutf8-1.0.6-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmp1new5yi3')] checks: 32, packages: 2
python-mutf8.src: E: spelling-error ('serializer', '%description -l en_US serializer -> serialize, serializes, serialized') python3-mutf8.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('serializer', '%description -l en_US serializer -> serialize, serializes, serialized') python3-mutf8.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.4 s
^^^ false positives
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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
python3-mutf8.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('serializer', '%description -l en_US serializer -> serialize, serializes, serialized') python3-mutf8.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 3 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-mutf8: /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/mutf8/cmutf8.cpython-313-x86_64-linux-gnu.so
Source checksums ---------------- http://github.com/TkTech/mutf8/archive/v1.0.6/mutf8-1.0.6.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c7a86f00bc8d313b9ce184375c944bf5be771127283d82a8d2becf33cc84e1c7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c7a86f00bc8d313b9ce184375c944bf5be771127283d82a8d2becf33cc84e1c7
Requires -------- python3-mutf8 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- python3-mutf8: python-mutf8 python3-mutf8 python3-mutf8(x86-64) python3.13-mutf8 python3.13dist(mutf8) python3dist(mutf8)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2359409 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, Java, SugarActivity, PHP, Ocaml, R, Perl, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
This package is
================ === APPROVED === ================
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2359409
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #4 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-mutf8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2359409
--- Comment #5 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- https://release-monitoring.org/project/377801/
Thanks for the review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2359409
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-b5ad2a8445 (python-mutf8-1.0.6-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-b5ad2a8445
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2359409
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-44aa656115 (python-mutf8-1.0.6-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-44aa656115
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2359409
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-44aa656115 has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-44aa656115 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-44aa656115
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2359409
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-b5ad2a8445 has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-b5ad2a8445 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-b5ad2a8445
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2359409
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed| |2025-05-01 02:06:10
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-44aa656115 (python-mutf8-1.0.6-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2359409
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-b5ad2a8445 (python-mutf8-1.0.6-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com