[Bug 1406797] New: Review Request: python-ansicolor - A library to produce ansi color output, colored highlighting and diffing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1406797
Bug ID: 1406797 Summary: Review Request: python-ansicolor - A library to produce ansi color output, colored highlighting and diffing Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: fszymanski@onet.pl QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://fszymanski.fedorapeople.org/python-ansicolor/python-ansicolor.spec SRPM URL: https://fszymanski.fedorapeople.org/python-ansicolor/python-ansicolor-0.2.4-...
Scratch: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=17015736
Description: ansicolor is a library that makes it easy to use ansi color markup in command line programs.
Fedora Account System Username: fszymanski
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1406797
Filip Szymański fszymanski@onet.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1406881
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1406881 [Bug 1406881] Review Request: vint - Lint tool for Vim script Language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1406797
Iryna Shcherbina ishcherb@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ishcherb@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Iryna Shcherbina ishcherb@redhat.com --- Hi Filip,
The spec file looks good, but please consider the following suggestions:
* License file must be installed when any subpackage combination is installed. Please add license to python-ansicolor-doc subpackage.
* There is no need to define `sum` macro, it is generated automatically after you set the first Summary tag. So you should just set the Summary of the main package and use %{summary} macro in your python[23]- subpackages.
* It is better to avoid using wildcards in the %files section to have an idea what is installed with the package. Doing the following change will make it more safe (same for %{python2_sitelib}):
%{python3_sitelib}/*
change to
%{python3_sitelib}/%{srcname} %{python3_sitelib}/%{srcname}-%{version}-py?.?.egg-info
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1406797
--- Comment #2 from Filip Szymański fszymanski@onet.pl --- Spec URL: https://fszymanski.fedorapeople.org/python-ansicolor/python-ansicolor.spec SRPM URL: https://fszymanski.fedorapeople.org/python-ansicolor/python-ansicolor-0.2.4-...
Hi Iryna, Thank you for taking the time to review this package.
You are absolutely right that I have to add the license file to the -doc subpackage, and that the `sum` macro is unnecessary.
When it comes to the wildcards Python packaging guidelines suggest to use them to capture both the module directory and the egg-info directory.
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Eggs#Providing_Egg_Metadata_...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1406797
Iryna Shcherbina ishcherb@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |ishcherb@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1406797
Iryna Shcherbina ishcherb@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |mhroncok@redhat.com
--- Comment #3 from Iryna Shcherbina ishcherb@redhat.com --- (In reply to Filip Szymański from comment #2)
When it comes to the wildcards Python packaging guidelines suggest to use them to capture both the module directory and the egg-info directory.
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: Python_Eggs#Providing_Egg_Metadata_Using_Setuptools
Fair enough.
Thank you for the changes.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. Please also uppercase ANSI in summary and description.
===== 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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [!]: 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. [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]: 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: [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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]: 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python2-ansicolor-0.2.4-2.fc24.noarch.rpm python3-ansicolor-0.2.4-2.fc24.noarch.rpm python-ansicolor-doc-0.2.4-2.fc24.noarch.rpm python-ansicolor-0.2.4-2.fc24.src.rpm python2-ansicolor.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ansi -> ANSI, ans, anti python2-ansicolor.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ansi -> ANSI, ans, anti python3-ansicolor.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ansi -> ANSI, ans, anti python3-ansicolor.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ansi -> ANSI, ans, anti python-ansicolor.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ansi -> ANSI, ans, anti python-ansicolor.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ansi -> ANSI, ans, anti 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python2-ansicolor.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ansi -> ANSI, ans, anti python2-ansicolor.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ansi -> ANSI, ans, anti python3-ansicolor.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ansi -> ANSI, ans, anti python3-ansicolor.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ansi -> ANSI, ans, anti 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Requires -------- python2-ansicolor (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi)
python3-ansicolor (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi)
python-ansicolor-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- python2-ansicolor: python-ansicolor python2-ansicolor
python3-ansicolor: python3-ansicolor
python-ansicolor-doc: python-ansicolor-doc
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/numerodix/ansicolor/archive/0.2.4/ansicolor-0.2.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f66c4e3446d419813de1bfd011f6dab3d96de9369388727fed434a63e7d8edbd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f66c4e3446d419813de1bfd011f6dab3d96de9369388727fed434a63e7d8edbd
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b1406797 Buildroot used: fedora-24-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1406797
--- Comment #4 from Filip Szymański fszymanski@onet.pl --- Spec URL: https://fszymanski.fedorapeople.org/python-ansicolor/python-ansicolor.spec SRPM URL: https://fszymanski.fedorapeople.org/python-ansicolor/python-ansicolor-0.2.4-...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1406797
Iryna Shcherbina ishcherb@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Iryna Shcherbina ishcherb@redhat.com --- Rpmlint ------- Checking: python2-ansicolor-0.2.4-3.fc24.noarch.rpm python3-ansicolor-0.2.4-3.fc24.noarch.rpm python-ansicolor-doc-0.2.4-3.fc24.noarch.rpm python-ansicolor-0.2.4-3.fc24.src.rpm 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Thanks for the update, looks good.
Package approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1406797
--- Comment #6 from Filip Szymański fszymanski@onet.pl --- Thanks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1406797
--- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-ansicolor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1406797
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-ansicolor-0.2.4-3.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-04ed64cdca
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1406797
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1406797
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-ansicolor-0.2.4-3.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-04ed64cdca
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1406797
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2017-01-15 02:51:09
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-ansicolor-0.2.4-3.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla