[Bug 1707810] New: Review Request: python3-lxml - XML processing library combining libxml2/libxslt with the ElementTree API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1707810
Bug ID: 1707810 Summary: Review Request: python3-lxml - XML processing library combining libxml2/libxslt with the ElementTree API Product: Fedora EPEL Version: epel7 Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.de QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/python3-lxml.spec SRPM URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/python3-lxml-4.2.5-3.el7.src.rpm Description: lxml is a Pythonic, mature binding for the libxml2 and libxslt libraries. It provides safe and convenient access to these libraries using the ElementTree It extends the ElementTree API significantly to offer support for XPath, RelaxNG, XML Schema, XSLT, C14N and much more. To contact the project, go to the project home page < or see our bug tracker at case you want to use the current ... Fedora Account System Username: robert
Note: This package is only intended for EPEL 7, not for Fedora. The existing python-lxml package in Fedora can not be branched for EPEL 7, because a same named source RPM package is part of RHEL. See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bkabrda/EPEL7_Python3 for details. The python3-lxml EPEL package is mostly modelled like python-lxml in Fedora.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1707810
--- Comment #1 from Robert Scheck redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.de --- Needed for https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-beautifulsoup4/pull-request/2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1707810
Robert Scheck redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Component|Package Review |Package Review Version|epel7 |rawhide Product|Fedora EPEL |Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1707810
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Package approved.
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]: 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]: 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", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Public domain", "zlib/libpng license". 783 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python3-lxml/review-python- lxml/licensecheck.txt [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. [ ]: 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 10240 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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 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. [-]: 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. [x]: %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 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: python-lxml-debuginfo-4.2.5-3.el7.x86_64.rpm python-lxml-4.2.5-3.el7.src.rpm python-lxml.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libxslt -> librettist python-lxml.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libxslt -> librettist python-lxml.src:35: W: macro-in-comment %{python3_pkgversion} python-lxml.src:36: W: macro-in-comment %{python3_pkgversion} python-lxml.src:37: W: macro-in-comment %{python3_pkgversion} python-lxml.src:55: W: macro-in-comment %{python3_other_pkgversion} python-lxml.src:56: W: macro-in-comment %{python3_other_pkgversion} python-lxml.src:57: W: macro-in-comment %{python3_other_pkgversion} python-lxml.src: E: specfile-error warning: Macro expanded in comment on line 35: %{python3_pkgversion}-cssselect python-lxml.src: E: specfile-error python-lxml.src: E: specfile-error warning: Macro expanded in comment on line 36: %{python3_pkgversion}-html5lib python-lxml.src: E: specfile-error python-lxml.src: E: specfile-error warning: Macro expanded in comment on line 37: %{python3_pkgversion}-beautifulsoup4 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 8 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1707810
--- Comment #3 from Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python3-lxml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1707810
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2019-eca0ef771a has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-eca0ef771a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1707810
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python3-lxml-4.2.5-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-eca0ef771a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1707810
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2019-07-07 00:34:47
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python3-lxml-4.2.5-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com