[Bug 2107915] New: Review Request: python-plac - The smartest command line arguments parser in the world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107915
Bug ID: 2107915 Summary: Review Request: python-plac - The smartest command line arguments parser in the world Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: code@musicinmybrain.net QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-plac.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-plac-1.3.5-1.fc36.src.rpm Description:
plac is a Python package that can generate command line parameters from function signatures.
plac works on Python 2.6 through all versions of Python 3.
plac has no dependencies beyond modules already present in the Python standard library.
plac implements most of its functionality in a single file that may be included in your source code.
Fedora Account System Username: music
This is an indirect dependency for the latest version of snakemake, via python-yte.
Koji scratch builds:
F37: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=89610064 F36: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=89610065 F35: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=89610066
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107915
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1276941 (fedora-neuro) Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276941 [Bug 1276941] Fedora NeuroImaging and NeuroScience tracking bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107915
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2109250
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2109250 [Bug 2109250] Review Request: python-yte - YAML template engine with Python expressions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107915
Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |sanjay.ankur@gmail.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |sanjay.ankur@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107915
Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com --- Looks good, XXX APPROVED XXX
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". 83 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/asinha/dump/fedora- reviews/2107915-python-plac/licensecheck.txt [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. [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]: 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]: 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: [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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-plac [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
^ Ran manually, no errors.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
^
Meh.
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ialbert/plac/archive/v1.3.5/plac-1.3.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 78a2bbef78c6463366d4b48692a86af00d4d4f7dfbe233583ca36fc5918f7ac6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 78a2bbef78c6463366d4b48692a86af00d4d4f7dfbe233583ca36fc5918f7ac6
Requires -------- python3-plac (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi)
python-plac-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- python3-plac: python-plac python3-plac python3.11-plac python3.11dist(plac) python3dist(plac)
python-plac-doc: python-plac-doc
Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2107915 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, Java, Ocaml, C/C++, fonts, PHP, Haskell, SugarActivity, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107915
--- Comment #2 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- Thank you for the review!
Repository requested: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/45943
Here is the rpmlint output. You have to run it manually with current fedora-review.
=============================================== rpmlint session starts =============================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 3
================ 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s ================
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107915
--- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-plac
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107915
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-d890e15da8 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-d890e15da8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107915
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2022-07-25 20:20:09
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-d890e15da8 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107915
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-63682875dd has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-63682875dd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107915
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-19b7563fee has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-19b7563fee
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107915
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-4448537502 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-4448537502
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107915
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-63682875dd has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-63682875dd *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-63682875dd
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=2107915
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-19b7563fee has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-19b7563fee *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-19b7563fee
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=2107915
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-4448537502 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-4448537502
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=2107915
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-63682875dd has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107915
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-19b7563fee has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107915
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-4448537502 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107915
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2024-98b346913f (python-plac-1.4.3-4.el10_0) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.0. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-98b346913f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107915
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2024-98b346913f (python-plac-1.4.3-4.el10_0) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.0 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com