[Bug 2232782] New: Review Request: python-onigurumacffi - Python cffi bindings for the Oniguruma regex engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232782
Bug ID: 2232782 Summary: Review Request: python-onigurumacffi - Python cffi bindings for the Oniguruma regex engine Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: maxwell@gtmx.me QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://gotmax23.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-onigurumacffi/python-onigur... SRPM URL: https://gotmax23.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-onigurumacffi/python-onigur...
Description: onigurumacffi provides Python cffi bindings for the Oniguruma regex engine.
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=104991227
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232782
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/asottile | |/onigurumacffi
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6317265 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232782
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org
--- Comment #2 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]: 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.
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". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/python- onigurumacffi/2232782-python-onigurumacffi/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. [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 11129 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]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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: [-]: 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. [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. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-onigurumacffi [ ]: 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. [x]: 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-onigurumacffi-1.2.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm python-onigurumacffi-debugsource-1.2.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm python-onigurumacffi-1.2.0-1.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/tmp72ioqf5l')] checks: 31, packages: 3
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 5.1 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-onigurumacffi.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/_onigurumacffi.abi3.so _Py_NoneStruct (/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/_onigurumacffi.abi3.so) python3-onigurumacffi.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/_onigurumacffi.abi3.so PyObject_CallMethod (/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/_onigurumacffi.abi3.so) python3-onigurumacffi.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/_onigurumacffi.abi3.so PyEval_RestoreThread (/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/_onigurumacffi.abi3.so) python3-onigurumacffi.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/_onigurumacffi.abi3.so _Py_Dealloc (/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/_onigurumacffi.abi3.so) python3-onigurumacffi.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/_onigurumacffi.abi3.so PyObject_Malloc (/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/_onigurumacffi.abi3.so) python3-onigurumacffi.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/_onigurumacffi.abi3.so PyObject_Free (/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/_onigurumacffi.abi3.so) python3-onigurumacffi.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/_onigurumacffi.abi3.so PyLong_FromLong (/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/_onigurumacffi.abi3.so) python3-onigurumacffi.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/_onigurumacffi.abi3.so PyLong_FromVoidPtr (/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/_onigurumacffi.abi3.so) python3-onigurumacffi.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/_onigurumacffi.abi3.so PyArg_UnpackTuple (/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/_onigurumacffi.abi3.so) python3-onigurumacffi.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/_onigurumacffi.abi3.so PyErr_Occurred (/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/_onigurumacffi.abi3.so) python3-onigurumacffi.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/_onigurumacffi.abi3.so PyImport_ImportModule (/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/_onigurumacffi.abi3.so) python3-onigurumacffi.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/_onigurumacffi.abi3.so PyEval_SaveThread (/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/_onigurumacffi.abi3.so) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s
Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-onigurumacffi: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/_onigurumacffi.abi3.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/asottile/onigurumacffi/archive/v1.2.0/python-onigurumacff... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 296fd0acd19bdb6af979ee02ed6795d9728f9a0845da91dc6cce7b9f2cf7ea8c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 296fd0acd19bdb6af979ee02ed6795d9728f9a0845da91dc6cce7b9f2cf7ea8c
Requires -------- python3-onigurumacffi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libonig.so.5()(64bit) python(abi) python3.11dist(cffi) rtld(GNU_HASH)
python-onigurumacffi-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- python3-onigurumacffi: python-onigurumacffi python3-onigurumacffi python3-onigurumacffi(x86-64) python3.11-onigurumacffi python3.11dist(onigurumacffi) python3dist(onigurumacffi)
python-onigurumacffi-debugsource: python-onigurumacffi-debugsource python-onigurumacffi-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2232782 -m fedora-38-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: C/C++, Haskell, fonts, Perl, R, Ruby, Ocaml, Java, SugarActivity, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comment: a) Unresolved symbols are in libpython3.11.so which seems not to be linked: ldd _onigurumacffi.abi3.so linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007ffde308a000) libonig.so.5 => /lib64/libonig.so.5 (0x00007f96ab7d2000) libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x00007f96ab5f5000) /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007f96ab8b1000)
Might there be some way to get these resolved and have the python library linked? b) Maybe update the spec to use %check %if %{with tests} %pytest %else %pyproject_check_import %endif
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232782
--- Comment #3 from Maxwell G maxwell@gtmx.me --- Thanks for the review, Benson!
Unversioned so-files
This is okay. That .so is a Python extension module, not a standard shared library.
a) Unresolved symbols are in libpython3.11.so which seems not to be linked:
I think this is okay. It's a CFFI extension module that uses the Python limited ABI 3, so it's not supposed to be linked to a specific libpython version. The python importer can load it just fine.
b) Maybe update the spec to use
Sure.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232782
--- Comment #4 from Maxwell G maxwell@gtmx.me --- Spec URL: https://gotmax23.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-onigurumacffi/python-onigur... SRPM URL: https://gotmax23.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-onigurumacffi/python-onigur...
Always run %pyproject_check_import and don't number Sources
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232782
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 1985323 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1985323&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6317265 to 6344290
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232782
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6344290 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232782
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #7 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Build log has the following warning: The license_file parameter is deprecated, use license_files instead.
By 2023-Oct-30, you need to update your project and remove deprecated calls or your builds will no longer be supported.
See https://setuptools.pypa.io/en/latest/userguide/declarative_config.html for details.
Maybe worth making a patch and submitting the change upstream.
$ rpm -qL -p python3-onigurumacffi-1.2.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/onigurumacffi-1.2.0.dist-info/LICENSE /usr/share/licenses/python3-onigurumacffi/LICENSE
So can remove %license declaration, but not a blocker.
Lint warning should disappear in next rpmlint release https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpmlint/issues/864 https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpmlint/pull/953
Approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232782
--- Comment #8 from Maxwell G maxwell@gtmx.me --- Thank you for the review, Benson!
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/55882
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232782
--- Comment #9 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-onigurumacffi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232782
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-74b9d75b0a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-74b9d75b0a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232782
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2023-08-28 18:43:36
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-74b9d75b0a has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232782
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-240bef9ff7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-240bef9ff7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232782
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-b1c2e97a50 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-b1c2e97a50
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232782
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-5f787b55f9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-5f787b55f9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232782
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-b1c2e97a50 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-b1c2e97a50 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-b1c2e97a50
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=2232782
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-240bef9ff7 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-240bef9ff7 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-240bef9ff7
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=2232782
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-5f787b55f9 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-2023-5f787b55f9 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-5f787b55f9
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=2232782
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-b1c2e97a50 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=2232782
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-5f787b55f9 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=2232782
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-240bef9ff7 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