[Bug 2141251] New: Review Request: mingw-python-waitress - MinGW Windows Python waitress library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141251
Bug ID: 2141251 Summary: Review Request: mingw-python-waitress - MinGW Windows Python waitress library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: manisandro@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-waitress.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-waitress-2.1.2-1.fc38.src... Description: MinGW Windows Python waitress library Fedora Account System Username: smani
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141251
Iñaki Ucar i.ucar86@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |i.ucar86@gmail.com CC| |i.ucar86@gmail.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review? Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141251
--- Comment #1 from Iñaki Ucar i.ucar86@gmail.com --- Couple of things:
I remember reading something about unifying native and mingw packages a few months ago in the devel list. In that spirit, wouldn't be easier to modify the existing python-waitress package to add this?
Also, I see in the python-waitress spec that upstream ships non-free doc files, so they have a script to clean the tarball before uploading the sources.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141251
--- Comment #2 from Sandro Mani manisandro@gmail.com --- Unifying is at discretion of the packager, indeed I've unified all packages where I maintain both variants. So far no python-package has been unified (and probably will not happen easily, as mingw-python moves independently from the native version and packaging mechanism is very different - pyproject vs python-build).
Regarding the docs, is any action required? AFAICS the source tarball only contains plain rst files + makefile.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141251
--- Comment #3 from Iñaki Ucar i.ucar86@gmail.com --- (In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #2)
Unifying is at discretion of the packager, indeed I've unified all packages where I maintain both variants. So far no python-package has been unified (and probably will not happen easily, as mingw-python moves independently from the native version and packaging mechanism is very different - pyproject vs python-build).
Ok!
Regarding the docs, is any action required? AFAICS the source tarball only contains plain rst files + makefile.
Yes, but they have a noncommercial clause (see the CONTRIBUTORS.txt file), so we should remove the docs directory.
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905695 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684335
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141251
--- Comment #4 from Sandro Mani manisandro@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-waitress.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-waitress-2.1.2-2.fc38.src...
%changelog * Fri Nov 18 2022 Sandro Mani manisandro@gmail.com - 2.1.2-2 - Use cleaned source tarball without docs
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94300323
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141251
Iñaki Ucar i.ucar86@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Iñaki Ucar i.ucar86@gmail.com --- Thanks, everything else LGTM. Package APPROVED. Review below for reference.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
===== 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", "*No copyright* Zope Public License 2.1", "*No copyright* Zope Public License", "Zope Public License 2.1". 52 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/iucar/fedora-review/2141251-mingw-python- waitress/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 [-]: 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. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [-]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [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 mingw32-python3-waitress , mingw64-python3-waitress [?]: Package functions as described. [?]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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. [-]: %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]: 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:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/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 checks: 31, packages: 2
mingw32-python3-waitress.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw64-python3-waitress.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Requires -------- mingw32-python3-waitress (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3.11 mingw32(python(abi))
mingw64-python3-waitress (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3.11 mingw64(python(abi))
Provides -------- mingw32-python3-waitress: mingw32(python3.11dist(waitress)) mingw32(python3dist(waitress)) mingw32-python3-waitress
mingw64-python3-waitress: mingw64(python3.11dist(waitress)) mingw64(python3dist(waitress)) mingw64-python3-waitress
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2141251 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, C/C++, Perl, Java, R, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141251
--- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mingw-python-waitress
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141251
Sandro Mani manisandro@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Status|POST |CLOSED Last Closed| |2022-11-18 21:57:12
--- Comment #7 from Sandro Mani manisandro@gmail.com --- Thanks!
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com