https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1961465
Bug ID: 1961465 Summary: Review Request: python3-discid - Python binding of libdiscid Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mruszczyk17@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Hello, hoping to get this reviewed as it's a newly introduced dependency for a piece of software I already package.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mruszczyk/python3-discid/...
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mruszczyk/python3-discid/... Description: python-discid is a Python binding of libdiscid by MusicBrainz.
The main purpose is the calculation of an identifier for audio discs (Disc ID) to use for the MusicBrainz database.
Fedora Account System Username: mruszczyk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1961465
Matthew Ruszczyk mruszczyk17@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment|0 |updated
--- Comment #0 has been edited ---
Hello, hoping to get this reviewed as it's a newly introduced dependency for a piece of software I already package.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mruszczyk/python3-discid/...
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mruszczyk/python3-discid/...
Description: python-discid is a Python binding of libdiscid by MusicBrainz.
The main purpose is the calculation of an identifier for audio discs (Disc ID) to use for the MusicBrainz database.
Fedora Account System Username: mruszczyk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1961465
Matthew Ruszczyk mruszczyk17@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment|0 |updated
--- Comment #0 has been edited ---
Hello, hoping to get this reviewed as it's a newly introduced dependency for a piece of software I already package.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mruszczyk/python3-discid/...
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mruszczyk/python3-discid/...
Description: python-discid is a Python binding of libdiscid by MusicBrainz.
The main purpose is the calculation of an identifier for audio discs (Disc ID) to use for the MusicBrainz database.
Fedora Account System Username: mruszczyk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1961465
Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com --- - The doc must be built with Sphinx, not simply including doc/ sources:
%build %py3_build
# Generate html docs PYTHONPATH=${PWD} sphinx-build-3 doc/ html # Remove the sphinx-build leftovers rm -rf html/.{doctrees,buildinfo}
[…]
%files %{python3_sitelib}/discid-*.egg-info %{python3_sitelib}/discid/ %license COPYING COPYING.LESSER %doc README.rst CHANGES.rst %doc html/
Package approved, please fix the aforementioned issue before import.
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", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later", "*No copyright* Expat License GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python3-discid/review- python3-discid/licensecheck.txt [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 686080 bytes in 34 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 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 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]: 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. [-]: 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. [-]: %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: python3-discid-1.2.0-1.fc35.noarch.rpm python3-discid-1.2.0-1.fc35.src.rpm python3-discid.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libdiscid python3-discid.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Libdiscid -> Disciplined python3-discid.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Libdiscid -> Disciplined python3-discid.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libdiscid -> disciplined 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1961465
--- Comment #2 from Matthew Ruszczyk mruszczyk17@gmail.com --- Completed. Sorry I missed that. Thank you so much for the quick review.
Updated Spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mruszczyk/python3-discid/... Updated srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mruszczyk/python3-discid/...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1961465
--- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python3-discid
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1961465
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-cff920c450 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-cff920c450
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1961465
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-9364ea4485 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-9364ea4485
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1961465
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-9364ea4485 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-9364ea4485 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-9364ea4485
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=1961465
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-cff920c450 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-cff920c450 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-cff920c450
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=1961465
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2021-06-02 00:49:50
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-9364ea4485 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1961465
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-cff920c450 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com