[Bug 2163518] New: Review Request: python-r128gain - Fast audio loudness scanner & tagger
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2163518
Bug ID: 2163518 Summary: Review Request: python-r128gain - Fast audio loudness scanner & tagger Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: omosnacek@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/omos/fedora-package-review/-/raw/100fc195fd3b14e72713f88f... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/omos/r128gain/srpm-builds... Description: r128gain is a multi platform command line tool to scan your audio files and tag them with loudness metadata (ReplayGain v2 or Opus R128 gain format), to allow playback of several tracks or albums at a similar loudness level. r128gain can also be used as a Python module from other Python projects to scan and/or tag audio files. Fedora Account System Username: omos
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/omos/r128gain/build/5286018/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2163518
Ondrej Mosnáček omosnacek@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Depends On| |2161095
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2161095 [Bug 2161095] Review Request: python-ffmpeg-python - Python bindings for FFmpeg
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2163518
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5286044 (failed)
Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.
- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2163518 Bug 2163518 depends on bug 2161095, which changed state.
Bug 2161095 Summary: Review Request: python-ffmpeg-python - Python bindings for FFmpeg https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2161095
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2163518
Ondrej Mosnáček omosnacek@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment|0 |updated
--- Comment #0 has been edited ---
Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/omos/fedora-package-review/-/raw/100fc195fd3b14e72713f88f... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/omos/r128gain/fedora-rawh... Description: r128gain is a multi platform command line tool to scan your audio files and tag them with loudness metadata (ReplayGain v2 or Opus R128 gain format), to allow playback of several tracks or albums at a similar loudness level. r128gain can also be used as a Python module from other Python projects to scan and/or tag audio files. Fedora Account System Username: omos
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/omos/r128gain/build/5286018/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2163518
--- Comment #2 from Ondrej Mosnáček omosnacek@gmail.com --- [fedora-review-service-build]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2163518
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/desbma/% | |{projname}
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5563172 (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=2163518
Troy Curtis troy@troycurtisjr.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |troy@troycurtisjr.com CC| |troy@troycurtisjr.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2163518
Troy Curtis troy@troycurtisjr.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(omosnacek@gmail.c | |om)
--- Comment #4 from Troy Curtis troy@troycurtisjr.com --- Issues ====== - "%pytest" is preferred to the deprecated "%python3 setup.py test" statement - Since this is meant to be used as a CLI app, a basic man page would be very useful. help2man or using pandoc with markdown would be pretty easy to create a basic manpage. https://eddieantonio.ca/blog/2015/12/18/authoring-manpages-in-markdown-with-... - If I enable the tests, they all fail. Either due to errors (AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'tags') or failures (AssertionError: 11 != 13).
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/troycurtisjr/working/oss/fedora/reviews/2163518-python-r128gain/licensecheck.txt [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]: 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 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: 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: [-]: 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. - Worked with both an ogg and mp3 file that I had laying around. [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. - https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/troycurtisjr/reviews/build/5565993/ [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Check is present, and optional, but is disabled due to the tests requiring internet. If I enable tests and run in my rawhide container, I got 6 failures and 5 errors. [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). Difference due only to use of auto macros. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-r128gain-1.0.6-1.fc39.noarch.rpm python-r128gain-1.0.6-1.fc39.src.rpm ==================================== rpmlint session starts =================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/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/tmpg7pz933m')] checks: 31, packages: 2
python-r128gain.spec:67: W: python-setup-test %python3 setup.py test python3-r128gain.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary r128gain ===== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.0 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: 1
python3-r128gain.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary r128gain 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/desbma/r128gain/archive/1.0.6/r128gain-1.0.6.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1aa20b360b845dec303964d3ba1ab2f5361ece465586ca74862ecee1c69223cc CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1aa20b360b845dec303964d3ba1ab2f5361ece465586ca74862ecee1c69223cc
Requires -------- python3-r128gain (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.11dist(ffmpeg-python) >= 0.2 with python3.11dist(ffmpeg-python) < 1) /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.11dist(crcmod) python3.11dist(mutagen) python3.11dist(tqdm)
Provides -------- python3-r128gain: python-r128gain python3-r128gain python3.11-r128gain python3.11dist(r128gain) python3dist(r128gain)
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/troycurtisjr/working/oss/fedora/reviews/2163518-python-r128gain/srpm/python-r128gain.spec 2023-02-24 20:15:01.907307272 -0500 +++ /home/troycurtisjr/working/oss/fedora/reviews/2163518-python-r128gain/srpm-unpacked/python-r128gain.spec 2023-01-22 19:00:00.000000000 -0500 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.3.1) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + %global modname r128gain %global projname %{modname} @@ -66,3 +76,4 @@
%changelog -%autochangelog +* Mon Jan 23 2023 John Doe packager@example.com - 1.0.6-1 +- Uncommitted changes
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2163518 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: fonts, Perl, R, SugarActivity, Haskell, C/C++, Java, PHP, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2163518
Ondrej Mosnáček omosnacek@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(omosnacek@gmail.c | |om) |
--- Comment #5 from Ondrej Mosnáček omosnacek@gmail.com --- (In reply to Troy Curtis from comment #4)
Issues
- "%pytest" is preferred to the deprecated "%python3 setup.py test" statement
%pytest doesn't work for this project because it doesn't use pytest, only the deprecated setup.py feature. It would need to be migrated to pytest, but unfortunately I'm not familiar enough with Python tooling to do that :/
- Since this is meant to be used as a CLI app, a basic man page would be very
useful. help2man or using pandoc with markdown would be pretty easy to create a basic manpage. https://eddieantonio.ca/blog/2015/12/18/authoring-manpages-in-markdown-with- pandoc/
Ok, I'll look into adding a manpage.
- If I enable the tests, they all fail. Either due to errors
(AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'tags') or failures (AssertionError: 11 != 13).
That seems to be due to missing commit d11e92b45907 ("tests: fix download of the Ogg file"). When I apply it as a patch (with b3df8561f38e as a context dependency) they pass for me with the current ffmpeg-free (used to require full ffmpeg from RPMFusion, but thanks to [1] it doesn't anymore). Would you like me to add those patches to the spec?
[1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ffmpeg/c/45f894ec0e43a37775393c159021a4ac...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2163518
Ondrej Mosnáček omosnacek@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(troy@troycurtisjr | |.com)
--- Comment #6 from Ondrej Mosnáček omosnacek@gmail.com --- (Adding needinfo - see question in the comment above.)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2163518
Troy Curtis troy@troycurtisjr.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(troy@troycurtisjr | |.com) |
--- Comment #7 from Troy Curtis troy@troycurtisjr.com --- (In reply to Ondrej Mosnáček from comment #5)
(In reply to Troy Curtis from comment #4)
Issues
- "%pytest" is preferred to the deprecated "%python3 setup.py test" statement
%pytest doesn't work for this project because it doesn't use pytest, only the deprecated setup.py feature. It would need to be migrated to pytest, but unfortunately I'm not familiar enough with Python tooling to do that :/
Yeah oftentimes, just using pytest as the runner is enough if unittests were used in the past. Mostly it comes down to the naming conventions for test discovery. I think in this case it would have just worked had upstream not put everything into the "__init__.py" file. Oh well, sorry for the distraction, I thought I had actually tried this one out first to make sure it was usable!
- If I enable the tests, they all fail. Either due to errors
(AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'tags') or failures (AssertionError: 11 != 13).
That seems to be due to missing commit d11e92b45907 ("tests: fix download of the Ogg file"). When I apply it as a patch (with b3df8561f38e as a context dependency) they pass for me with the current ffmpeg-free (used to require full ffmpeg from RPMFusion, but thanks to [1] it doesn't anymore). Would you like me to add those patches to the spec?
Yes, it only makes sense to include the conditional test block if enabling it would result in a usable configuration. I suspect as a packager, having the tests functional will be very useful, so I would definitely recommend applying the patch. Since these tests can't be run on koji anyway due to the network requirement, it might be equally valid to remove the test option entirely.
It might be nice to try to nudge upstream to roll a new release since it seems like there are a few fixes which have been merged since the last release.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2163518
--- Comment #8 from Ondrej Mosnáček omosnacek@gmail.com --- (In reply to Troy Curtis from comment #7)
(In reply to Ondrej Mosnáček from comment #5)
(In reply to Troy Curtis from comment #4)
- If I enable the tests, they all fail. Either due to errors
(AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'tags') or failures (AssertionError: 11 != 13).
That seems to be due to missing commit d11e92b45907 ("tests: fix download of the Ogg file"). When I apply it as a patch (with b3df8561f38e as a context dependency) they pass for me with the current ffmpeg-free (used to require full ffmpeg from RPMFusion, but thanks to [1] it doesn't anymore). Would you like me to add those patches to the spec?
Yes, it only makes sense to include the conditional test block if enabling it would result in a usable configuration. I suspect as a packager, having the tests functional will be very useful, so I would definitely recommend applying the patch. Since these tests can't be run on koji anyway due to the network requirement, it might be equally valid to remove the test option entirely.
It might be nice to try to nudge upstream to roll a new release since it seems like there are a few fixes which have been merged since the last release.
I did and the maintainer made a new release very quickly in response, so I bumped the version to 1.0.7 and now the tests pass (tested with `fedpkg mockbuild --enable-network --with tests`).
I also added manpage generation via argparse-manpage.
Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/omos/fedora-package-review/-/raw/324bf0d9380d296edbfbc2b6... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/omos/r128gain/srpm-builds...
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/omos/r128gain/build/5708631/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2163518
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Created attachment 1953710 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1953710&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 5563172 to 5709385
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2163518
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5709385 (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=2163518
Troy Curtis troy@troycurtisjr.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(omosnacek@gmail.c | |om)
--- Comment #11 from Troy Curtis troy@troycurtisjr.com --- Issues ====== - I believe the license field should be LGPL-2.1-or-later since this is in the LICENSE:
This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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. [!]: 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, Version 2.1". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/troycurtisjr/working/oss/fedora/reviews/2163518-python-r128gain/licensecheck.txt [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]: 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 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: 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. [-]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. Tests require network access and can't be added by default, but work when enabled [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) Using rpmautospec [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-r128gain-1.0.7-1.fc39.noarch.rpm python-r128gain-1.0.7-1.fc39.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/tmpjcpm1ivz')] checks: 31, packages: 2
python-r128gain.src: W: strange-permission python-r128gain.spec 600 python-r128gain.spec:81: W: python-setup-test %python3 setup.py test ===== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.1 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: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/desbma/r128gain/archive/1.0.7/r128gain-1.0.7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 97e6917fde2e2b9b8e2873fa127e848634ddd29ad841cd05007c6fa2e6f872c3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 97e6917fde2e2b9b8e2873fa127e848634ddd29ad841cd05007c6fa2e6f872c3
Requires -------- python3-r128gain (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.11dist(ffmpeg-python) >= 0.2 with python3.11dist(ffmpeg-python) < 1) /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.11dist(crcmod) python3.11dist(mutagen) python3.11dist(tqdm)
Provides -------- python3-r128gain: python-r128gain python3-r128gain python3.11-r128gain python3.11dist(r128gain) python3dist(r128gain)
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/troycurtisjr/working/oss/fedora/reviews/2163518-python-r128gain/srpm/python-r128gain.spec 2023-03-26 10:19:33.215397201 -0400 +++ /home/troycurtisjr/working/oss/fedora/reviews/2163518-python-r128gain/srpm-unpacked/python-r128gain.spec 2023-03-25 17:31:52.000000000 -0400 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.3.5) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + %global modname r128gain %global projname %{modname} @@ -81,3 +91,4 @@
%changelog -%autochangelog +* Sat Mar 25 2023 John Doe packager@example.com - 1.0.7-1 +- Uncommitted changes
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2163518 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, PHP, Java, C/C++, Haskell, fonts, R, Ocaml, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2163518
Ondrej Mosnáček omosnacek@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(omosnacek@gmail.c | |om) |
--- Comment #12 from Ondrej Mosnáček omosnacek@gmail.com --- (In reply to Troy Curtis from comment #11)
Issues
- I believe the license field should be LGPL-2.1-or-later since this is in
the LICENSE:
This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
Good point. The setup.py metadata also specifies LGPLv2+, so I have corrected it.
Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/omos/fedora-package-review/-/raw/e4d09f2fd729659975827fc6... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/omos/r128gain/srpm-builds...
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/omos/r128gain/build/5710072/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2163518
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Created attachment 1953770 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1953770&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 5709385 to 5710080
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2163518
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5710080 (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=2163518
Troy Curtis troy@troycurtisjr.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #15 from Troy Curtis troy@troycurtisjr.com --- LGTM, approved!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2163518
--- Comment #16 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-r128gain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2163518
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-73fd1957da has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-73fd1957da
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2163518
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2023-04-03 20:07:21
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-73fd1957da 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