[Bug 2121982] New: Review Request: python-asn1 - Simple ASN.1 encoder and decoder for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121982
Bug ID: 2121982 Summary: Review Request: python-asn1 - Simple ASN.1 encoder and decoder for Python Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dcavalca@fb.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-asn1/python-asn1.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-asn1/python-asn1-2.6.0-1.fc3...
Description: Python-ASN1 is a simple ASN.1 encoder and decoder for Python with support for BER (parser) and DER (parser and generator) encoding (except indefinite lengths).
Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121982
--- Comment #1 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=91341932
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121982
Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2121984 Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121984 [Bug 2121984] Review Request: asahi-installer - Asahi Linux installer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121982
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org 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
Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file license.rst.txt is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
===== 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". 34 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/python-asn1/2121982-python- asn1/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [?]: 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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 files. [?]: 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 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. [?]: 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-asn1 [?]: 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. [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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/a/asn1/asn1-2.6.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ec33c5ab6a73a21e2f5b998c1af3b06a4011bc334c9cb1f664d2d5b2222bb1d5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ec33c5ab6a73a21e2f5b998c1af3b06a4011bc334c9cb1f664d2d5b2222bb1d5
Requires -------- python3-asn1 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi)
python-asn1-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- python3-asn1: python-asn1 python3-asn1 python3.11-asn1 python3.11dist(asn1) python3dist(asn1)
python-asn1-doc: python-asn1-doc
Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2121982 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: Haskell, fonts, Ocaml, PHP, C/C++, SugarActivity, Java, R, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Comments: a) Licensing seems ok, MIT license is generated for the documentation https://python-asn1.readthedocs.io/en/latest/license.html b) The requirements seem to be more than what you have listed in the spec file: https://github.com/andrivet/python-asn1/blob/master/requirements-dev.txt https://github.com/andrivet/python-asn1/blob/master/requirements.txt What functionality is lost by not including these?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121982
--- Comment #3 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- Thanks for the review!
a) Licensing seems ok, MIT license is generated for the documentation https://python-asn1.readthedocs.io/en/latest/license.html
Yep, afaict the whole thing is under MIT, and the generated one is just a pretty rendering of the license, but the actual text is the same as the one in LICENSE (which is what I'm marking as %license for all subpackages)
b) The requirements seem to be more than what you have listed in the spec file:
This package is using the dependency generator per the new python packaging guidelines: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#Automatica... so the only BRs explicitly listed in the package are the ones the generation didn't pick up automatically.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121982
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Thanks. Approved. Given that tests pass, it should be function as expected.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121982
--- Comment #5 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- Thanks!
$ fedpkg request-repo python-asn1 2121982 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/47170 $ fedpkg request-branch --repo python-asn1 f37 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/47171 $ fedpkg request-branch --repo python-asn1 f36 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/47172 $ fedpkg request-branch --repo python-asn1 f35 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/47173
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121982
--- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-asn1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121982
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-e042076f40 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-e042076f40
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121982
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2022-08-30 18:57:13
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-e042076f40 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=2121982
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-50376ed631 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-50376ed631
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121982
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-cda7dc2a5f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-cda7dc2a5f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121982
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-86199f4907 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-86199f4907
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121982
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-50376ed631 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-2022-50376ed631 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-50376ed631
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=2121982
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-86199f4907 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-86199f4907 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-86199f4907
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=2121982
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-cda7dc2a5f 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-cda7dc2a5f *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-cda7dc2a5f
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=2121982
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-cda7dc2a5f 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=2121982
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-86199f4907 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121982
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-50376ed631 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com