[Bug 2213169] New: Review Request: python-jupyter-collaboration - JupyterLab Extension enabling Real-Time Collaboration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213169
Bug ID: 2213169 Summary: Review Request: python-jupyter-collaboration - JupyterLab Extension enabling Real-Time Collaboration Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: lbalhar@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://lbalhar.fedorapeople.org/python-jupyter-collaboration.spec SRPM URL: https://lbalhar.fedorapeople.org/python-jupyter-collaboration-1.0.0a9-3.fc38... Description: JupyterLab Real-Time Collaboration is a Jupyter Server Extension and JupyterLab extensions providing support for Y documents and adding collaboration UI elements in JupyterLab. Fedora Account System Username: lbalhar
Built and tested with updated version of python-jupyter-ydoc in https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/lbalhar/python-jupyter-ydoc/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213169
Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mhroncok@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- I've noticed one thing: The RPM version needs to be 1.0.0~a9 or else it will sort higher than 1.0.0 final.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213169
--- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- # PACKAGE_VERSION is part of the remove_hatch-nodejs-version.patch sed -i "s/PACKAGE_VERSION/%{version}/" pyproject.toml
Pro-tip: See the %writevars macro from https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/redhat-rpm-config/blob/rawhide/f/macros.f...
tl;dr:
1) Use @@VERSION@@ in the patch 2) Replace the sed with %writevars -f pyproject.toml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213169
--- Comment #3 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #2)
- Replace the sed with %writevars -f pyproject.toml
Actually with %writevars -f pyproject.toml version
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213169
--- Comment #4 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- (Using %writevars -f pyproject.toml version actually collides with ~ in %version, so it might be actually more complex than the sed.)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213169
--- Comment #5 from Lumír Balhar lbalhar@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://lbalhar.fedorapeople.org/python-jupyter-collaboration.spec SRPM URL: https://lbalhar.fedorapeople.org/python-jupyter-collaboration-1.0.0~a9-3.fc3...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213169
Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mhroncok@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213169
--- Comment #6 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- Issues:
remove_hatch-nodejs-version.patch has no comment in the specfile and no commit message either. In order to understand why it is needed, I must have read the diff and made assumptions.
See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PatchUpstreamStatu...
python-jupyter-collaboration.spec:17: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 17)
(The tab is just trailing and should be removed.)
python3-jupyter-collaboration.noarch: E: backup-file-in-package /usr/share/jupyter/labextensions/@jupyter/collaboration-extension/schemas/@jupyter/collaboration-extension/package.json.orig
(I don't say this is a blocker but might be a good idea to fix that upsream?)
License: BSD-3-Clause -> BSD-3-Clause AND MIT: jupyter_collaboration/labextension/static/third-party-licenses.json is MIT packages/collaboration/src/cursors.ts is BSD 3-Clause AND MIT /usr/share/jupyter/labextensions/@jupyter/collaboration-extension/static/third-party-licenses.json also mentions a couple bundled libraries (not provided from the spec) licensed as MIT
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213169
--- Comment #7 from Lumír Balhar lbalhar@redhat.com --- I've updated the package to 1.0.0 final and fixed all the mentioned issues.
Spec URL: https://lbalhar.fedorapeople.org/python-jupyter-collaboration.spec SRPM URL: https://lbalhar.fedorapeople.org/python-jupyter-collaboration-1.0.0-1.fc38.s...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213169
Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Status|ASSIGNED |NEW Assignee|mhroncok@redhat.com |nobody@redhat.com
--- Comment #8 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- I might not be able to finish this before I leave for vacation in 2 days, so I am unassigning myself not to block others.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213169
Karolina Surma ksurma@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |ksurma@redhat.com CC| |ksurma@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213169
--- Comment #9 from Karolina Surma ksurma@redhat.com --- This package should require python-jupyter-filesystem - same as all the other ones which place configs in %{_sysconfdir}/jupyter/jupyter_server_config.d/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213169
--- Comment #10 from Karolina Surma ksurma@redhat.com --- from fedora-review [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/jupyter/labextensions/@jupyter [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/jupyter/labextensions/@jupyter
/usr/share/jupyter/labextensions/ is owned by python-jupyter-filesystem too.
Not a blocker: you don't need to have the explicit license file declared, it's picked up automatically: $ rpm -qL python3-jupyter-collaboration-1.0.0-1.fc39.noarch.rpm /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/jupyter_collaboration-1.0.0.dist-info/licenses/LICENSE /usr/share/licenses/python3-jupyter-collaboration/LICENSE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213169
--- Comment #11 from Lumír Balhar lbalhar@redhat.com --- Thank you for the review. Requirements and the license fixed.
Spec URL: https://lbalhar.fedorapeople.org/python-jupyter-collaboration.spec SRPM URL: https://lbalhar.fedorapeople.org/python-jupyter-collaboration-1.0.0-1.fc38.s...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213169
--- Comment #12 from Karolina Surma ksurma@redhat.com --- Even in the latest version fedora-review detects an unowned directory: /usr/share/jupyter/labextensions/@jupyter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213169
--- Comment #13 from Karolina Surma ksurma@redhat.com --- Can this be mitigated by changing in %files: %{_datadir}/jupyter/labextensions/@jupyter/collaboration-extension to %{_datadir}/jupyter/labextensions/@jupyter ?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213169
--- Comment #14 from Lumír Balhar lbalhar@redhat.com --- I'm thinking about it and it might make sense to add this folder to python-jupyter-filesystem so this folder can be shared by multiple extensions in the future. What do you think about this idea?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213169
--- Comment #15 from Karolina Surma ksurma@redhat.com --- This makes sense to me, the directory name doesn't contain elements unique for this package and it might happen it'll be reused by other Jupyter components.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213169
--- Comment #16 from Lumír Balhar lbalhar@redhat.com --- PR for python-jupyter-core (origin of python-jupyter-filesystem): https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-jupyter-core/pull-request/16
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213169
Karolina Surma ksurma@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #17 from Karolina Surma ksurma@redhat.com --- I used the updated python-jupyter-core to build the package again, now the ownership is fixed: %{_datadir}/jupyter/labextensions/@jupyter - owned by python-jupyter-filesystem %{_datadir}/jupyter/labextensions/@jupyter/collaboration-extension - owned by python3-jupyter-collaboration
Package APPROVED. Please build it only with/after https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-jupyter-core/pull-request/16 is available
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", "BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* [generated file]", "MIT License", "MIT License BSD 3-Clause License". 47 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ksurma/tmp/2213169-python-jupyter-collaboration/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own 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 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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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. [-]: 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). [x]: 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213169
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-b051d09ef4 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-b051d09ef4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213169
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2023-06-27 09:24:11
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-b051d09ef4 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213169
--- Comment #20 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-jupyter-collaboration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213169
Lumír Balhar lbalhar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|ERRATA |RAWHIDE
--- Comment #21 from Lumír Balhar lbalhar@redhat.com --- https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=102705004
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com