[Bug 2141869] New: Review Request: python-flake8-comprehensions - Flake8 plugin that helps you write better list/set/dict comprehensions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141869
Bug ID: 2141869 Summary: Review Request: python-flake8-comprehensions - Flake8 plugin that helps you write better list/set/dict comprehensions Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: logans@cottsay.net QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-flake8-comprehensions/python-flake8-... SRPM URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-flake8-comprehensions/python-flake8-...
Description: A flake8 plugin to identify the following patterns: - C400-402: Unnecessary generator - rewrite as a <list/set/dict> comprehension. - C403-404: Unnecessary list comprehension - rewrite as a <set/dict> comprehension. - C405-406: Unnecessary <list/tuple> literal - rewrite as a <set/dict> literal. - C408: Unnecessary <dict/list/tuple> call - rewrite as a literal. - C409-410: Unnecessary <list/tuple> passed to <list/tuple>() - (remove the outer call to <list/tuple>``()/rewrite as a ``<list/tuple> literal). - C411: Unnecessary list call - remove the outer call to list(). - C413: Unnecessary <list/reversed> call around sorted(). - C414: Unnecessary <list/reversed/set/sorted/tuple> call within <list/set/sorted/tuple>(). - C415: Unnecessary subscript reversal of iterable within <reversed/set/sorted>(). - C416: Unnecessary <list/set> comprehension - rewrite using <list/set>(). - C417: Unnecessary map usage - rewrite using a generator expression/<list/set/dict> comprehension.
Fedora Account System Username: cottsay Target branches: f36 f37 epel9 Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94030755
Thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141869
Wayne Sun gsun@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |gsun@redhat.com, | |mhroncok@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Wayne Sun gsun@redhat.com --- This is an informal review as I'm not a sponsor, same as bug 2141871 would you consider update:
1. Define the description as global variable, and reuse it in package description 2. Update the URL without using %srcname for easier access
I saw the upstream project is using MIT license on Modern Style with sublicense, so it's matched in the spec.
The %check part is using %pyproject_check_import which check import, as this is a plugin it should suffice. I saw upstream have pytest, though it failed for me when I updated the spec with adding the pytest. As it's upstream issue with the pytest part, and import test should suffice with plugin usage, @Miro any comments?
For the require, the package require:
((python3.11dist(flake8) < 3.2 or python3.11dist(flake8) > 3.2) with python3.11dist(flake8) >= 3)
it's auto-generated and basically require python3.11dist(flake8) >= 3) and not equal 3.2, with check in the setup.cfg from upstream it configured with:
install_requires = flake8>=3.0,!=3.2.0
so it's expected.
With try to install the built package on my laptop:
# dnf install results/python3-flake8-comprehensions-3.10.1-1.fc38.noarch.rpm
Error: Problem: conflicting requests - nothing provides ((python3.11dist(flake8) < 3.2 or python3.11dist(flake8) > 3.2) with python3.11dist(flake8) >= 3) needed by python3-flake8-comprehensions-3.10.1-1.fc38.noarch - nothing provides python(abi) = 3.11 needed by python3-flake8-comprehensions-3.10.1-1.fc38.noarch (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)
as my laptop is with python 3.10, so it failed as expected, this is to check the detail version provided and what's been required, and the info is accurate with the build as I think.
Rpmlint pass locally:
# rpmlint python-flake8-comprehensions.spec =================================================================== rpmlint session starts =================================================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/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
# rpmlint srpm/python-flake8-comprehensions-3.10.1-1.fc38.src.rpm =================================================================================================================================================== rpmlint session starts =================================================================================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/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
==================================================================================================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s ====================================================================================================================
# rpmlint results/python3-flake8-comprehensions-3.10.1-1.fc38.noarch.rpm =================================================================================================================================================== rpmlint session starts =================================================================================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/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
==================================================================================================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s ====================================================================================================================
With fedora-review and manually review:
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== 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]". [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. [x]: 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. [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 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: [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. [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. [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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/adamchainz/flake8-comprehensions/archive/3.10.1/flake8-co... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 30faf9834dcb54f5786219a9c47eab7c6ebe03ecb4f1ae6e33f06708656691c0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 30faf9834dcb54f5786219a9c47eab7c6ebe03ecb4f1ae6e33f06708656691c0
Requires -------- python3-flake8-comprehensions (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ((python3.11dist(flake8) < 3.2 or python3.11dist(flake8) > 3.2) with python3.11dist(flake8) >= 3) python(abi)
Provides -------- python3-flake8-comprehensions: python-flake8-comprehensions python3-flake8-comprehensions python3.11-flake8-comprehensions python3.11dist(flake8-comprehensions) python3dist(flake8-comprehensions)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2141869 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: fonts, Java, SugarActivity, Ocaml, PHP, C/C++, Perl, Haskell, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
To check the detail require and provide with version number, as it's auto-generated and no error in the build log
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141869
--- Comment #2 from Scott K Logan logans@cottsay.net --- Hi, thanks for taking a look.
I saw upstream have pytest, though it failed for me when I updated the spec with adding the pytest.
Yes - I tried pytest too, but the fixture is breaking all of the tests:
recursive dependency involving fixture 'flake8_path' detected
I'm not really sure how upstream intends for this to work.
- Define the description as global variable, and reuse it in package description
- Update the URL without using %srcname for easier access
Done.
Spec URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-flake8-comprehensions/python-flake8-... SRPM URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-flake8-comprehensions/python-flake8-... Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94273254
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141869
--- Comment #3 from Wayne Sun gsun@redhat.com --- Thanks for the update.
Rerun with rpmlint on the spec, src rpm and built rpm pass locally.
The require and provide info is accurate.
Rerun the fedora-review and updated review:
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== 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]" [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. [x]: 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. [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 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). [?]: 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. [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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/adamchainz/flake8-comprehensions/archive/3.10.1/flake8-co... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 30faf9834dcb54f5786219a9c47eab7c6ebe03ecb4f1ae6e33f06708656691c0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 30faf9834dcb54f5786219a9c47eab7c6ebe03ecb4f1ae6e33f06708656691c0
Requires -------- python3-flake8-comprehensions (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ((python3.11dist(flake8) < 3.2 or python3.11dist(flake8) > 3.2) with python3.11dist(flake8) >= 3) python(abi)
Provides -------- python3-flake8-comprehensions: python-flake8-comprehensions python3-flake8-comprehensions python3.11-flake8-comprehensions python3.11dist(flake8-comprehensions) python3dist(flake8-comprehensions)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2141869 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, C/C++, Java, SugarActivity, fonts, R, Perl, Haskell, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141869
--- Comment #4 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com ---
Yes - I tried pytest too, but the fixture is breaking all of the tests:
recursive dependency involving fixture 'flake8_path' detected
That is from pytest-flake8-path (listed in https://github.com/adamchainz/flake8-comprehensions/blob/main/requirements/r...), which is not packaged. Is suggest putting a comment in the %check section that explains we cannot run tests because of that (or actually packagign the dependency).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141869
Scott K Logan logans@cottsay.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |2144097
--- Comment #5 from Scott K Logan logans@cottsay.net ---
That is from pytest-flake8-path
Indeed, you're right! I've created a review for that package, and confirmed that having it here makes all 121 tests for this package pass. There is a fair amount of testing that can be done here, and I think it's worth the extra dependency to make it all work.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144097 [Bug 2144097] Review Request: python-pytest-flake8-path - A pytest fixture for testing flake8 plugins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141869
--- Comment #6 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- You can now get all the test deps similarily to bz2144097:
Pseudo-diff:
%generate_buildrequires -%pyproject_buildrequires +%pyproject_buildrequires requirements/requirements.in
%check -%pyproject_check_import +%pytest
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141869 Bug 2141869 depends on bug 2144097, which changed state.
Bug 2144097 Summary: Review Request: python-pytest-flake8-path - A pytest fixture for testing flake8 plugins https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144097
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141869
--- Comment #7 from Scott K Logan logans@cottsay.net --- Updated to use the now-packaged python-pytest-flake8-path RPM, and the requirements.in file.
Spec URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-flake8-comprehensions/python-flake8-... SRPM URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-flake8-comprehensions/python-flake8-... Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94433464
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141869
--- Comment #8 from Wayne Sun gsun@redhat.com --- The pytest does pass now.
Rerun the fedora-review and updated review:
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== 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]". [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. [x]: 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. [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 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). [?]: 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. [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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/adamchainz/flake8-comprehensions/archive/3.10.1/flake8-co... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 30faf9834dcb54f5786219a9c47eab7c6ebe03ecb4f1ae6e33f06708656691c0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 30faf9834dcb54f5786219a9c47eab7c6ebe03ecb4f1ae6e33f06708656691c0
Requires -------- python3-flake8-comprehensions (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ((python3.11dist(flake8) < 3.2 or python3.11dist(flake8) > 3.2) with python3.11dist(flake8) >= 3) python(abi)
Provides -------- python3-flake8-comprehensions: python-flake8-comprehensions python3-flake8-comprehensions python3.11-flake8-comprehensions python3.11dist(flake8-comprehensions) python3dist(flake8-comprehensions)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2141869 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, Java, Haskell, Ocaml, R, SugarActivity, fonts, Perl, C/C++ Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141869
Wayne Sun gsun@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |gsun@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141869
Wayne Sun gsun@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141869
Scott K Logan logans@cottsay.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Link ID| |Fedora Pagure | |releng/fedora-scm-requests/ | |issue/49766
--- Comment #9 from Scott K Logan logans@cottsay.net --- Thank you, and welcome to the Fedora packaging group!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141869
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-7b15a77bd4 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-7b15a77bd4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141869
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2022-12-08 20:29:36
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-7b15a77bd4 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141869
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-e8891d8ef5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-e8891d8ef5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141869
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-98e5b86c95 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-98e5b86c95
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141869
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-98e5b86c95 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-2022-98e5b86c95 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-98e5b86c95
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=2141869
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-a24086df07 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-a24086df07 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-a24086df07
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=2141869
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-e8891d8ef5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-e8891d8ef5
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=2141869
--- Comment #17 from Wayne Sun gsun@redhat.com --- (In reply to Scott K Logan from comment #9)
Thank you, and welcome to the Fedora packaging group!
Thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141869
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-a24086df07 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=2141869
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-98e5b86c95 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=2141869
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-e8891d8ef5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com