https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787701
Bug ID: 1787701 Summary: Review Request: python2-pillow - Python image processing 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/python2-pillow.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/python2-pillow-6.2.1-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: Python image processing library Fedora Account System Username: smani
Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=40097837
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787701
Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mhroncok@redhat.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com ---
This is a minimal compatibility package for https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2266
Feel free to keep this in the description, but I'd rather include the original one and put this at the end.
%{python2_sitearch}/*
This is forbidden:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_files_to_...
%exclude %{python2_sitearch}/PIL/_imagingtk* %exclude %{python2_sitearch}/PIL/ImageTk* %exclude %{python2_sitearch}/PIL/SpiderImagePlugin* %exclude %{python2_sitearch}/PIL/ImageQt*
Can the files be explicitly removed in %install instead? %exclude is tricky, see for example: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/994
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787701
--- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com ---
Provides: python-imaging = %{version}-%{release}
No more of this, python-xxx is provided by Python 3 packages.
Also, latest version of pillow in rawhide is: 6.2.1-1.fc32, this package needs to be at least 6.2.1-2.fc32.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787701
--- Comment #3 from Sandro Mani manisandro@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/python2-pillow.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/python2-pillow-6.2.1-2.fc32.src.rpm
%changelog * Sat Jan 04 2020 Sandro Mani manisandro@gmail.com - 6.2.1-2 - Add full description - %%{python2_sitearch}/* -> %%{python2_sitearch}/PIL/ - Remove files instead of using %%exclude - Don't provide python-imaging
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787701
--- Comment #4 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com ---
Drop files which used to be in subpackages
Obsolete the subpackages?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787701
--- Comment #5 from Sandro Mani manisandro@gmail.com ---
Drop files which used to be in subpackages
Obsolete the subpackages?
This was addressed in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1752361
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787701
--- Comment #6 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- ack. will run automated checks.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787701
--- Comment #7 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- Created attachment 1649712 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1649712&action=edit Output of fedora-review's licensecheck
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues: ======= - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. Note: python27 is deprecated, but see https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2266
- The license of the package is probably incomplete. There are LGPL files included. Also other licenses present in tests, not in the resulting RPM, that's OK. See attachment.
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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. [?]: 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", "*No copyright* SIL Open Font License (v1.1)", "SIL Open Font License (v1.1)", "NTP License (legal disclaimer)", "Expat License". [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 163840 bytes in 2 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]: 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 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. [?]: 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. [-]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python2-pillow-6.2.1-2.fc32.x86_64.rpm python2-pillow-debuginfo-6.2.1-2.fc32.x86_64.rpm python2-pillow-debugsource-6.2.1-2.fc32.x86_64.rpm python2-pillow-6.2.1-2.fc32.src.rpm 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: python2-pillow-debuginfo-6.2.1-2.fc32.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python2-pillow-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://python-pillow.github.io/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> python2-pillow.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://python-pillow.github.io/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> python2-pillow-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://python-pillow.github.io/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Unversioned so-files --------------------
All Python extension modules. No issue.
python2-pillow: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/PIL/_imaging.so python2-pillow: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/PIL/_imagingcms.so python2-pillow: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/PIL/_imagingft.so python2-pillow: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/PIL/_imagingmath.so python2-pillow: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/PIL/_imagingmorph.so python2-pillow: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/PIL/_webp.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/python-pillow/Pillow/archive/6.2.1/Pillow-6.2.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7bf2d6bdb68fa6ccec15c0fd9aa20fac9641cd20dc6079344f5a6534e13a70f9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7bf2d6bdb68fa6ccec15c0fd9aa20fac9641cd20dc6079344f5a6534e13a70f9
Requires -------- python2-pillow (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ghostscript libc.so.6()(64bit) libfreetype.so.6()(64bit) libimagequant.so.0()(64bit) libjpeg.so.62()(64bit) libjpeg.so.62(LIBJPEG_6.2)(64bit) liblcms2.so.2()(64bit) libopenjp2.so.7()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython2.7.so.1.0()(64bit) libtiff.so.5()(64bit) libtiff.so.5(LIBTIFF_4.0)(64bit) libwebp.so.7()(64bit) libwebpdemux.so.2()(64bit) libwebpmux.so.3()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) python(abi) python2-olefile rtld(GNU_HASH)
python2-pillow-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
python2-pillow-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- python2-pillow: python2-imaging python2-pillow python2-pillow(x86-64) python2.7dist(pillow) python2dist(pillow)
python2-pillow-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) python2-pillow-debuginfo python2-pillow-debuginfo(x86-64)
python2-pillow-debugsource: python2-pillow-debugsource python2-pillow-debugsource(x86-64)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787701
--- Comment #8 from Sandro Mani manisandro@gmail.com --- UnsharpMask.c, _imagingcms.c and ImageCms.py all state something along the lines of:
/* Originally released under LGPL. Graciously donated to PIL for distribution under the standard PIL license in 2009." */
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787701
Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- Oh. OK, package approved. Please coordinate the build with removal from the original package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787701
--- Comment #10 from Sandro Mani manisandro@gmail.com --- Yep will do - thanks for the review!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787701
--- Comment #11 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python2-pillow
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787701
Sandro Mani manisandro@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2020-01-07 07:39:13
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com