https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126146
Bug ID: 2126146 Summary: Review Request: conan - Open-source C/C++ package manager Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: vitaly@easycoding.org QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://xvitaly.fedorapeople.org/for-review/conan.spec SRPM URL: https://xvitaly.fedorapeople.org/for-review/conan-2.0.0-0.1.beta3.fc36.src.r... Description: Conan is a package manager for C and C++ developers Fedora Account System Username: xvitaly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126146
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org Flags| |fedora-review? Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126146
--- Comment #1 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- It does not build on rawhide or f37: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fed500/conan/build/4836763/
nothing provides requested (python3dist(distro) <= 1.6 with python3dist(distro)
= 1.0.2)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126146
--- Comment #2 from Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org ---
nothing provides requested (python3dist(distro) <= 1.6 with python3dist(distro) >= 1.0.2)
Good catch. Thanks. Patched out all hardcoded versions.
Spec URL: https://xvitaly.fedorapeople.org/for-review/conan.spec SRPM URL: https://xvitaly.fedorapeople.org/for-review/conan-2.0.0-0.1.beta3.fc36.src.r...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126146
--- Comment #3 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- The requirements.txt file is in the folder conans, not in the top level folder. Can you update the sed command in the spec file?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126146
--- Comment #4 from Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org ---
The requirements.txt file is in the folder conans, not in the top level folder. Can you update the sed command in the spec file?
Fixed.
Spec URL: https://xvitaly.fedorapeople.org/for-review/conan.spec SRPM URL: https://xvitaly.fedorapeople.org/for-review/conan-2.0.0-0.1.beta3.fc36.src.r...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126146
--- Comment #5 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- 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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "*No copyright* [generated file]". 769 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/conan/2126146-conan/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 20480 bytes in 2 files. [?]: 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]: 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. [?]: 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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/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: 1
conan.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary conan 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.5 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/conan-io/conan/archive/2.0.0-beta3/conan-2.0.0-beta3.tar.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 186d8c5ceced14055ecb6f5507f83e868c29feb749 6475410c829482288b915d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 186d8c5ceced14055ecb6f5507f83e868c29feb749 6475410c829482288b915d
Requires -------- conan (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 cmake gcc gcc-c++ git-core ninja-build python(abi) python3.11dist(colorama) python3.11dist(distro) python3.11dist(fasteners) python3.11dist(jinja2) python3.11dist(patch-ng) python3.11dist(python-dateutil) python3.11dist(pyyaml) python3.11dist(requests) python3.11dist(urllib3)
Provides -------- conan: conan python3.11dist(conan) python3dist(conan)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2126146 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, fonts, Java, PHP, Ocaml, Haskell, C/C++, SugarActivity, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Comments: a) Is it possible to run the tests https://github.com/conan-io/conan#running-the-tests especially since the dependency requirements have been relaxed. Probably short versions (python -m pytest . -m "not slow") are sufficient, though these also take some time. Maybe good to upstream weaker dependency requirements if tests pass rather than removing dependency requirements completely if upstream is responsive to this. If a test failure is not important, maybe good to note this. b) The version on PyPi is 1.5.2 not the 2.0.0-Beta https://pypi.org/project/conan/ do you expect to package the release version of 2.0.0? c) Might the name python3-conans/python-conans or a virtual provider with this name also be used? See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_applicati... d) The license is included twice: usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/conan-2.0.0b3.dist-info/LICENSE.md usr/share/licenses/conan/LICENSE.md The line %license LICENSE.md can be removed from the spec file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126146
--- Comment #6 from Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org ---
Is it possible to run the tests
Most of their tests require network access. Not suitable for Fedora. Also I don't want to handle with upstream tests failures.
The version on PyPi is 1.5.2 not the 2.0.0-Beta https://pypi.org/project/conan/ do you expect to package the release version of 2.0.0?
Yes. Version 1.x require an ancient versions of some Python libraries and upstream refuses to update their project to match modern API.
Might the name python3-conans/python-conans or a virtual provider with this name also be used?
This is a self-contained package with a well-known name. It doesn't provide any libraries for third-parties usage.
d) The license is included twice: usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/conan-2.0.0b3.dist-info/LICENSE.md usr/share/licenses/conan/LICENSE.md
Yes, conan-2.0.0b3.dist-info/LICENSE.md can be removed.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126146
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(code@musicinmybra | |in.net) CC| |code@musicinmybrain.net
--- Comment #7 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- The file in dist-info follows Python packaging guidelines, probably better to have two copies of the licenses then assuming that is ok.
Updating distro to 1.7.0 seems to work, https://github.com/conan-io/conan/pull/12140 maybe it is better to do that than drop all the limits in requirements.txt if a test fails, when changing these, one can report upstream and hopefully get it fixed which should ensure the package works correctly.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126146
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(code@musicinmybra | |in.net) |
--- Comment #8 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- Was there something specific you wanted from me?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126146
--- Comment #9 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Thanks Ben, you have allowed for 2 copies of the license file in some of your Python packaging reviews. I do not know if this is documented anywhere? In this case it would seem to make sense since Python will want metadata information, but regular packaging places the license file in a different location. Is an exception required?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126146
--- Comment #10 from Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org ---
Updating distro to 1.7.0 seems to work, https://github.com/conan-io/conan/pull/12140 maybe it is better to do that than drop all the limits in requirements.txt
Removing pinned versions is a good thing for distribution packaging.
if a test fails, when changing these, one can report upstream and hopefully get it fixed which should ensure the package works correctly.
Conan upstream don't care about downstream packaging at all. They're hostile.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126146
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #11 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Ok. Upstream seems responsive on updating the version dependencies - the pull request was approved. Their CI will catch test failures which would not be caught by an unversioned set of dependencies, but understand if this makes maintenance more troublesome. I guess users can report if something does not work.
Approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126146
--- Comment #12 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/conan
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126146
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-30516e0a65 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-30516e0a65
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126146
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-30516e0a65 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-30516e0a65
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-23e483e942 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-23e483e942
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126146
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-30516e0a65 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-2022-30516e0a65 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-30516e0a65
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=2126146
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-23e483e942 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-23e483e942 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-23e483e942
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=2126146
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed| |2022-09-24 00:16:08
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-23e483e942 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=2126146
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-30516e0a65 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=2126146
--- Comment #19 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #9)
Thanks Ben, you have allowed for 2 copies of the license file in some of your Python packaging reviews. I do not know if this is documented anywhere? In this case it would seem to make sense since Python will want metadata information, but regular packaging places the license file in a different location. Is an exception required?
Explictly say %license files don't need to be relative (installed in /usr/share/licenses) https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1223
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com