[Bug 1856163] New: Review Request: python-vcversioner - Use version control tags to discover version numbers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856163
Bug ID: 1856163 Summary: Review Request: python-vcversioner - Use version control tags to discover version numbers Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: itamar@ispbrasil.com.br QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://itamarjp.fedorapeople.org/review/python-vcversioner.spec SRPM URL: https://itamarjp.fedorapeople.org/review/python-vcversioner-2.16.0.0-1.fc32....
Description: Use version control tags to discover version numbers Fedora Account System Username: itamarjp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856163
Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |mail@fabian-affolter.ch Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mail@fabian-affolter.ch Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch --- - Please modify the description. Perhaps something like this:
One can write a setup.py with no version information specified. vcversioner will find a recent, properly-formatted VCS tag and extract a version from it. It's much more convenient to be able to use your version control system's tagging mechanism to derive a version number than to have to duplicate that information all over the place.
- License file is missing. Consider to switch to the upstream tarball which contains the license file. - There are also tests available (test_vcversioner.py).
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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "ISC License". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fab/Documents/repos/reviews/1856163-python- vcversioner/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 1 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: No rpmlint messages. [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: [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). [x]: 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-vcversioner-2.16.0.0-1.fc33.noarch.rpm python-vcversioner-2.16.0.0-1.fc33.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. python3-vcversioner.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/habnabit/vcversioner <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/v/vcversioner/vcversioner-2.1... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : dae60c17a479781f44a4010701833f1829140b1eeccd258762a74974aa06e19b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : dae60c17a479781f44a4010701833f1829140b1eeccd258762a74974aa06e19b
Requires -------- python3-vcversioner (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3dist(setuptools)
Provides -------- python3-vcversioner: python-vcversioner python3-vcversioner python3.9-vcversioner python3.9dist(vcversioner) python3dist(vcversioner)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1856163 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: Perl, SugarActivity, Java, Haskell, PHP, R, C/C++, Ocaml, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856163
--- Comment #2 from Itamar Reis Peixoto itamar@ispbrasil.com.br --- description updated, but the tarball I think upstream expect people to use from PyPi
https://github.com/habnabit/vcversioner/blob/master/vcversioner.py#L199
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856163
--- Comment #3 from Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch --- The PR for adding the COPYING (https://github.com/habnabit/vcversioner/pull/11) file to the PyPI release tarball is open for almost three and a half years.
The GitHub tarball includes the tests and the license file. From my point of view, would be easier to use the actual upstream source than downloading and handling two files manually.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856163
Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1875495
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875495 [Bug 1875495] Review Request: python-ee - Port of node.js's EventEmitter to Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856163
Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(itamar@ispbrasil. | |com.br)
--- Comment #4 from Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch --- This is dependency of python-ee.
Could you please provide an updated spec file? Then we could proceed with the review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856163
--- Comment #5 from Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch --- Any progress here?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856163
Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|NOTABUG |--- Keywords| |Reopened
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856163
Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo? | |needinfo?(itamar@ispbrasil. | |com.br)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856163
Itamar Reis Peixoto itamar@ispbrasil.com.br changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(itamar@ispbrasil. | |com.br) |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856163
--- Comment #7 from Itamar Reis Peixoto itamar@ispbrasil.com.br --- (In reply to Fabian Affolter from comment #4)
This is dependency of python-ee.
yeah, the only reason for submitting this package is to satisfy the dependencies of others
let me add the COPYING
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856163
--- Comment #8 from Itamar Reis Peixoto itamar@ispbrasil.com.br --- look now,
Spec URL: https://itamarjp.fedorapeople.org/review/python-vcversioner.spec SRPM URL: https://itamarjp.fedorapeople.org/review/python-vcversioner-2.16.0.0-1.fc32....
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856163
Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) | Flags|needinfo? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch --- Looks like that "Requires: python3dist(setuptools)" could be dropped as the dependency generator is not disable. It's your call.
Commend addressed. Package APPROVED.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856163
--- Comment #10 from Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch --- s/Commend/Comments/g
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856163
--- Comment #12 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-vcversioner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856163
--- Comment #11 from Itamar Reis Peixoto itamar@ispbrasil.com.br --- https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/29357
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856163
Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed|2020-10-04 00:45:22 |2020-10-28 08:28:24
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com