[Bug 2329763] New: Review Request: pykakasi - Lightweight converter from Japanese Kana-kanji sentences into Kana-Roman
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2329763
Bug ID: 2329763 Summary: Review Request: pykakasi - Lightweight converter from Japanese Kana-kanji sentences into Kana-Roman Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: kevin@scrye.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/review/pykakasi/pykakasi.spec SRPM URL: https://scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/review/pykakasi/pykakasi-2.3.0-1.fc42.src.rp... Description: a Python Natural Language Processing (NLP) library to transliterate hiragana, katakana and kanji (Japanese text) into rōmaji (Latin/Roman alphabet). It can handle characters in NFC form. Fedora Account System Username: kevin
This package is needed by calibre 7.22.0+ It needs the python-jaconv package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2329763
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://codeberg.org/miurah | |r/pykakasi
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8332108 (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
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=2329763
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org Flags| |fedora-review? Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2329763
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |2329762
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2329762 [Bug 2329762] Review Request: python-jaconv - Pure-Python Japanese character interconverter for Hiragana, Katakana, Hankaku, Zenkaku and more
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2329763 Bug 2329763 depends on bug 2329762, which changed state.
Bug 2329762 Summary: Review Request: python-jaconv - Pure-Python Japanese character interconverter for Hiragana, Katakana, Hankaku, Zenkaku and more https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2329762
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2329763
--- Comment #2 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- [fedora-review-service-build]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2329763
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8372941 (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=2329763
Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2329432
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2329432 [Bug 2329432] calibre-7.23.0 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2329763
--- Comment #4 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- ackage 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. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU General Public License [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass Ave)]", "BSD 3-Clause License". 63 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/python-pykakasi/review- pykakasi/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.13/site- packages, /usr/lib/python3.13 [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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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). [ ]: 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 ------- Checking: pykakasi-2.3.0-1.fc42.noarch.rpm pykakasi-2.3.0-1.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/tmpm54twqie')] checks: 32, packages: 2
pykakasi.noarch: E: spelling-error ('rōmaji', '%description -l en_US rōmaji -> majority') pykakasi.src: E: spelling-error ('rōmaji', '%description -l en_US rōmaji -> majority') pykakasi.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/pykakasi/cli.py 644 /usr/bin/env python pykakasi.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kakasi pykakasi.noarch: W: no-documentation == 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 2 warnings, 9 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 5.6 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-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
pykakasi.noarch: E: spelling-error ('rōmaji', '%description -l en_US rōmaji -> majority') pykakasi.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/pykakasi/cli.py 644 /usr/bin/env python pykakasi.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kakasi pykakasi.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings, 5 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 1.4 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://codeberg.org/miurahr/pykakasi/archive/v2.3.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 35ba99a5cac665ef07eb9144f2e91b97f22daa33db4d0790c0698ee73b65a360 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 35ba99a5cac665ef07eb9144f2e91b97f22daa33db4d0790c0698ee73b65a360
Requires -------- pykakasi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.13dist(deprecated) python3.13dist(jaconv)
Provides -------- pykakasi: pykakasi python3.13dist(pykakasi) python3dist(pykakasi)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n pykakasi Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: Haskell, Perl, Java, fonts, C/C++, SugarActivity, R, Ocaml, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments: a) Please change
%global _description %{expand: a Python Natural Language Processing (NLP) library to transliterate hiragana, katakana and kanji (Japanese text) into rōmaji (Latin/Roman alphabet). It can handle characters in NFC form.
to
%global _description %{expand: a Python Natural Language Processing (NLP) library to transliterate hiragana, katakana and kanji (Japanese text) into rōmaji (Latin/Roman alphabet). It can handle characters in NFC form.}
b) Is it worth building the documentation?
c) The sentence:
Unidic is released under any of the GPL2, the LGPL2.1, or the 3-clause BSD License. (See src/data/unidic/BSD.txt) PyKakasi relicenses a part of the unidic with GPL3+.
is unclear. Was permission obtained from Unidic consortium to relicense to GPL-3.0-or-later or is an effective license analysis being done and because BSD-3-Clause is more permissive, the effective license is GPL-3.0-or-later? If an effective license analysis is done, the license filed should be: GPL-3.0-or-later AND BSD-3-Clause and the BSD-3-Clause license should be marked as a license in the spec file.
d) Please raise issue upstream to use text of GPL-3 license with correct address (though the address has recently changed):
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt
e) Please fix pykakasi.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/pykakasi/cli.py 644 /usr/bin/env python by using shebang fix macro as described in the python packaging guidelines
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2329763
--- Comment #5 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com --- Thanks a bunch for the review!
a) fixed. Oops.
b) I'm not sure. Just including the .rst docs would be easy... html docs I can get to build with sphinx ok, but then it duplicates a bunch of things between ja and base html
c) Yeah, my reading was that it was effectively GPLv3+ via BSD. Updated the license field.
d) huh. I thought that was a gplv2 thing? I see no addresses there... The only diff between that text file and the LICENSE here is that they seem to have replaced the http links with https.
e) fixed (although there's a pykakasi.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/pykakasi/cli.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 -sP now. I'm not sure if thats worth fixing...none of my quick attempts to do so seemed to work.
new packages:
Spec URL: https://scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/review/pykakasi/pykakasi.spec SRPM URL: https://scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/review/pykakasi/pykakasi-2.3.0-2.fc42.src.rp...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2329763
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2064537 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2064537&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8372941 to 8464377
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2329763
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8464377 (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=2329763
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org ---
Comments: a) $rpmlint -e non-executable-script non-executable-script: This text file contains a shebang or is located in a path dedicated for executables, but lacks the executable bits and cannot thus be executed. If the file is meant to be an executable script, add the executable bits, otherwise remove the shebang or move the file elsewhere.
Examining $ more pykakasi-2.3.0-1.fc42.noarch.rpm/usr/bin/kakasi #! /usr/bin/python3 -sP # -*- coding: utf-8 -*- import re import sys from pykakasi.cli import cli_main if __name__ == '__main__': sys.argv[0] = re.sub(r'(-script.pyw|.exe)?$', '', sys.argv[0]) sys.exit(cli_main())
would remove the shebang line from cli.py
b) Sphinx has an option to build man pages: https://www.sphinx-doc.org/en/master/usage/builders/index.html Perhaps add pushd docs sphinx-build . -b man -d man popd
c) Pull request to update text: https://codeberg.org/miurahr/pykakasi/pulls/176
d) License warning is from https://codeberg.org/miurahr/pykakasi/src/branch/master/src/data/kakasidict.... so can be ignored.
e) Approved. Please fix (a) before importing. Consider adding man pages as documentation.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2329763
--- Comment #9 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com --- Thanks again for reviewing.
a) Yeah, I know, but... I can't seem to get cli.py to be a different perm. pyproject_install seems to always want to install it that way since it's going into site_packages. I'll try and see if I can find a way around that.
b) Interesting idea. will investigate.
c) Thanks!
d) ok
Will poke at a) and b) before importing (probibly this coming weekend)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2329763
--- Comment #10 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com --- ok. Here's what I ended up with/plan to import:
Spec URL: https://scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/review/pykakasi/pykakasi.spec SRPM URL: https://scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/review/pykakasi/pykakasi-2.3.0-3.fc42.src.rp...
This fixes perms on cli.py, adds a man page generated by sphinx...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2329763
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pykakasi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2329763
--- Comment #12 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Thanks.
https://release-monitoring.org/project/85361/
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com