[Bug 1279783] New: Review Request: python-et_xmlfile - An implementation of lxml.xmlfile for the standard library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279783
Bug ID: 1279783 Summary: Review Request: python-et_xmlfile - An implementation of lxml.xmlfile for the standard library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jujens@jujens.eu QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://dl.jujens.eu/SPECS/python-et_xmlfile.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.jujens.eu/SRPMS/python-et_xmlfile-1.0.1-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: et_xmlfile is a low memory library for creating large XML files.
It is based upon the xmlfile module from lxml with the aim of allowing code to be developed that will work with both libraries. It was developed initially for the openpyxl project but is now a standalone module.
Fedora Account System Username: jujens
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279783
Julien Enselme jujens@jujens.eu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1279785
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279785 [Bug 1279785] Review Request: python-openpyxl - Python library to read/write Excel 2010 xlsx/xlsm files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279783
Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pahan@hubbitus.info changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |pahan@hubbitus.info Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |pahan@hubbitus.info
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279783
--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- hubbitus's scratch build of python-et_xmlfile-1.0.1-1.fc23.src.rpm for f23 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11946530
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279783
--- Comment #2 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pahan@hubbitus.info --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [+] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [x] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [+]: 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 [+]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [+]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [+]: Changelog in prescribed format. [+]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [+]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [+]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [+]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+]: Package does not generate any conflict. [+]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [+]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [+]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [+]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: 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 [+]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [+]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [+]: 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. [+]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [+]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [+]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [+]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [+]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [+]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [+]: Dist tag is present. [+]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [+]: Permissions on files are set properly. [+]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [+]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [+]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [+]: Package is not relocatable. [+]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [+]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [+]: File names are valid UTF-8. [+]: 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 [+]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [+]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [+]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [+]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2-et_xmlfile , python3-et_xmlfile [?]: Package functions as described. [+]: Latest version is packaged. [+]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [+]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [+]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Trivial test included (and may), please add: %{__python2} setup.py test %{__python3} setup.py test in %check section.
[+]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [+]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [+]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [+]: Buildroot is not present [+]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [+]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [+]: SourceX is a working URL. [+]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python2-et_xmlfile-1.0.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm python3-et_xmlfile-1.0.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm python-et_xmlfile-1.0.1-1.fc22.src.rpm python2-et_xmlfile.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) lxml -> XML python2-et_xmlfile.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) xmlfile -> misfile python2-et_xmlfile.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US et -> ET, wt, rt python2-et_xmlfile.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xmlfile -> misfile python2-et_xmlfile.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lxml -> XML python2-et_xmlfile.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openpyxl -> Penelope python3-et_xmlfile.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) lxml -> XML python3-et_xmlfile.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) xmlfile -> misfile python3-et_xmlfile.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US et -> ET, wt, rt python3-et_xmlfile.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xmlfile -> misfile python3-et_xmlfile.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lxml -> XML python3-et_xmlfile.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openpyxl -> Penelope python-et_xmlfile.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) lxml -> XML python-et_xmlfile.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) xmlfile -> misfile python-et_xmlfile.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US et -> ET, wt, rt python-et_xmlfile.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xmlfile -> misfile python-et_xmlfile.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lxml -> XML python-et_xmlfile.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openpyxl -> Penelope 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 18 warnings.
Requires -------- python2-et_xmlfile (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python2-jdcal
python3-et_xmlfile (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-jdcal
Provides -------- python2-et_xmlfile: python-et_xmlfile python2-et_xmlfile
python3-et_xmlfile: python3-et_xmlfile
Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/e/et_xmlfile/et_xmlfile-1.0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 614d9722d572f6246302c4491846d2c393c199cfa4edc9af593437691683335b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 614d9722d572f6246302c4491846d2c393c199cfa4edc9af593437691683335b https://bitbucket.org/openpyxl/et_xmlfile/raw/8c7ad6904ebe0ff98c204a3e77d7e7... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : afe62b360cdca81fb8de6ee4b7610da1d86c391777a80c7acb6d11455c53c429 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : afe62b360cdca81fb8de6ee4b7610da1d86c391777a80c7acb6d11455c53c429
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1279783 Buildroot used: fedora-22-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Conclusion: The only stop issue missing python3-jdcal dependency. and please inlcude check. All other fine.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279783
--- Comment #3 from Julien Enselme jujens@jujens.eu --- I just added tests as requested. As for the python3-jdcal dependency, it was already there, wasn't it?
SPEC: http://dl.jujens.eu/SPECS/python-et_xmlfile.spec SRPM: http://dl.jujens.eu/SRPMS/python-et_xmlfile-1.0.1-2.fc23.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279783
--- Comment #4 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pahan@hubbitus.info --- Hm. According to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279225 it should be, but I still do not see it for Fedora 23: $ LANG=en_US.utf8 dnf list python3-jdcal Last metadata expiration check performed 0:08:51 ago on Sun Nov 22 21:21:38 2015. Error: No matching Packages to list
$ LANG=en_US.utf8 sudo dnf install python3-et_xmlfile-1.0.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm Last metadata expiration check performed 0:11:27 ago on Sun Nov 22 21:21:38 2015. Error: nothing provides python3-jdcal needed by python3-et_xmlfile-1.0.1-1.fc22.noarch (try to add '--allowerasing' to command line to replace conflicting packages)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279783
--- Comment #5 from Julien Enselme jujens@jujens.eu --- It is still in testing for f23 (and a request has been made for stable): https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-83313fb26c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279783
--- Comment #6 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pahan@hubbitus.info --- I have fedora-updates-testing repo enabled. Are you able install python3-et_xmlfile?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279783
--- Comment #7 from Julien Enselme jujens@jujens.eu ---
Are you able install python3-et_xmlfile?
I do:
[root@giskard /home/jenselme]# dnf install python3-et_xmlfile-1.0.1-2.fc23.noarch.rpm --enablerepo=u*g Last metadata expiration check performed 0:01:48 ago on Sun Nov 22 19:56:15 2015. Dependencies resolved. ================================================================================ Package Arch Version Repository Size ================================================================================ Installing: python3-et_xmlfile noarch 1.0.1-2.fc23 @commandline 28 k python3-jdcal noarch 1.0-1.fc23 updates-testing 16 k
Transaction Summary ================================================================================ Install 2 Packages
Total size: 44 k Total download size: 16 k Installed size: 129 k Is this ok [y/N]: y Downloading Packages: python3-jdcal-1.0-1.fc23.noarch.rpm 152 kB/s | 16 kB 00:00 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 13 kB/s | 16 kB 00:01 Running transaction check Transaction check succeeded. Running transaction test Transaction test succeeded. Running transaction Installing : python3-jdcal-1.0-1.fc23.noarch 1/2 Installing : python3-et_xmlfile-1.0.1-2.fc23.noarch 2/2 Verifying : python3-et_xmlfile-1.0.1-2.fc23.noarch 1/2 Verifying : python3-jdcal-1.0-1.fc23.noarch 2/2
Installed: python3-et_xmlfile.noarch 1.0.1-2.fc23 python3-jdcal.noarch 1.0-1.fc23
Complete!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279783
Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pahan@hubbitus.info changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pahan@hubbitus.info --- Ok, then package APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279783
--- Comment #9 from Julien Enselme jujens@jujens.eu --- Thanks.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279783
--- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/python-et_xmlfile
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279783
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-et_xmlfile-1.0.1-3.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-995b26534b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279783
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279783
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-et_xmlfile-1.0.1-3.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-dee7f6c44c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279783
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-et_xmlfile-1.0.1-3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update python-et_xmlfile' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-995b26534b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279783
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-et_xmlfile-1.0.1-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279783
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2015-12-01 12:52:12
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279783
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-et_xmlfile-1.0.1-3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla