[Bug 2156932] New: Review Request: python-sgp4 - Compute position and velocity of earth-orbiting satellites
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2156932
Bug ID: 2156932 Summary: Review Request: python-sgp4 - Compute position and velocity of earth-orbiting satellites Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mattia.verga@proton.me QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/python-sgp4/python-sgp4.spec SRPM URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/python-sgp4/python-sgp4-2.21-1.fc38.src.rpm Description: This Python package computes the position and velocity of an earth-orbiting satellite, given the satellite’s TLE orbital elements from a source like CelesTrak. It implements the most recent version of SGP4, and is regularly run against the SGP4 test suite to make sure that its satellite position predictions agree to within 0.1 mm with the predictions of the standard distribution of the algorithm. This error is far less than the 1–3 km/day by which satellites themselves deviate from the ideal orbits described in TLE files. Fedora Account System Username: mattia
COPR scratch build with example review: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mattia/Testing/build/5188372/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2156932
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2156932
--- Comment #1 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "Unknown or generated". 21 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/python-spg4/2156932- python-sgp4/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [?]: 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. [ ]: 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. [?]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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. [ ]: 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). [?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-sgp4 [ ]: 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: 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: python3-sgp4-2.21-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm python-sgp4-debugsource-2.21-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm python-sgp4-2.21-1.fc38.src.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpvgpig4x0')] checks: 31, packages: 3
python-sgp4.src: W: strange-permission python-sgp4.spec 600 python3-sgp4.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 8.5 s
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: 2
python3-sgp4.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.7 s
Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-sgp4: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/sgp4/vallado_cpp.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/s/sgp4/sgp4-2.21.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6179b875044877e941633c20af7722fd231a88d8a89af01bf30bd64f33cdecef CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6179b875044877e941633c20af7722fd231a88d8a89af01bf30bd64f33cdecef
Requires -------- python3-sgp4 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH)
python-sgp4-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- python3-sgp4: python-sgp4 python3-sgp4 python3-sgp4(x86-64) python3.11-sgp4 python3.11dist(sgp4) python3dist(sgp4)
python-sgp4-debugsource: python-sgp4-debugsource python-sgp4-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2156932 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, fonts, Ruby, Ocaml, PHP, R, Perl, Haskell, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Comments: a) Can you check builds on other architectures in Copr? Aarch64, S390x b) Could http://celestrak.com/publications/AIAA/2006-6753/AIAA-2006-6753.zip be used for the library rather than bundling the C++ file? c) Under what license is http://celestrak.com/publications/AIAA/2006-6753/AIAA-2006-6753.zip under? Upstream Python library should probably reference this as the source of the C++ code and perhaps cite associated paper. d) No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-sgp4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2156932
--- Comment #2 from Mattia Verga mattia.verga@proton.me --- (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #1)
Comments: a) Can you check builds on other architectures in Copr? Aarch64, S390x
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mattia/Astronomy/build/5518906/
b) Could http://celestrak.com/publications/AIAA/2006-6753/AIAA-2006-6753.zip be used for the library rather than bundling the C++ file?
Hardly. To unbundle sgp4 code would need to write and provide a Makefile ourselves, since upstream only provides Visual Studio project file. And I'm not going to attempt that, as I don't know how to do that. I should have, however, put a "Provides: bundled()" tag, will fix that.
c) Under what license is http://celestrak.com/publications/AIAA/2006-6753/AIAA-2006-6753.zip under? Upstream Python library should probably reference this as the source of the C++ code and perhaps cite associated paper.
I assume it is Public Domain. From upstream FAQ at https://celestrak.org/publications/AIAA/2006-6753/faq.php : "There is no license associated with the code and you may use it for any purpose—personal or commercial—as you wish. We ask only that you include citations in your documentation and source code to show the source of the code and provide links to the main page, to facilitate communications regarding any questions on the theory or source code." Indeed, python-sgp4 should put a note somewhere to cite source code URL.
d) No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-sgp4
Unversioned python-sgp4 doesn't exist (is empty), so I don't think this is necessary.
Let me know if you think it's absolutely necessary to unbundle sgp4, in that case I can retire this review request. Otherwise, I'll ask fedora-legal to review sgp4 license and fix the specfile.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2156932
--- Comment #3 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Adding bundled provides seems reasonable: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling
A diff of the files SGP4.cpp SGP4.h in python-sgp4 and from http://celestrak.com/publications/AIAA/2006-6753/AIAA-2006-6753.zip shows they are the same.
It is possible to create a shared library as described at: https://renenyffenegger.ch/notes/development/languages/C-C-plus-plus/GCC/cre...
gcc -c -fpic SGP4.cpp -o SGP4.o gcc -shared SGP4.o -o libSGP4.so
However, a different method is needed to create bindings to a c library, see for example: https://blog.hardinglabs.com/python-ctypes-to-sgp4.html https://swig.org/tutorial.html
As this would change the package substantially, bundling seems reasonable. Upstream may consider using SWIG or similar approaches at some point.
Please do check on licensing, and update appropriately
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2156932
--- Comment #4 from Mattia Verga mattia.verga@proton.me --- Waiting for license check on https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/159 After that I'll update the specfile.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2156932
--- Comment #5 from Mattia Verga mattia.verga@proton.me --- SGP4 Permission Notice was approved, so I've update the license tag with it
Spec URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/python-sgp4/python-sgp4.spec SRPM URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/python-sgp4/python-sgp4-2.21-1.fc39.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2156932
--- Comment #6 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- [fedora-review-service-build]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2156932
--- Comment #7 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Seems ok. Note that LICENSE appears twice, python3-sgp4-2.21-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm/usr/share/licenses/python3-sgp4/LICENSE
python3-sgp4-2.21-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/sgp4-2.21.dist-info/LICENSE
Probably %license is not needed in the files section of the spec file.
Maybe it is helpful to add bundled(sgp4) to the spec file.
Also may be helpful to make apull request to the repository to include the SGP4 license/attribution.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2156932
--- Comment #8 from Mattia Verga mattia.verga@proton.me --- Updated as requested, see also upstream https://github.com/brandon-rhodes/python-sgp4/issues/112
Spec URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/python-sgp4/python-sgp4.spec SRPM URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/python-sgp4/python-sgp4-2.21-1.fc39.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2156932
--- Comment #9 from Mattia Verga mattia.verga@proton.me --- [fedora-review-service-build]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2156932
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Thanks. Approved.
Review of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221376 would be appreciated if time and expertise allow.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2156932
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-sgp4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2156932
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-1de15d2978 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-1de15d2978
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2156932
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2023-07-09 17:42:54
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-1de15d2978 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com