[Bug 1837139] New: Review Request: python-py-gql - Comprehensive GraphQL implementation for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1837139
Bug ID: 1837139 Summary: Review Request: python-py-gql - Comprehensive GraphQL implementation for Python Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mail@fabian-affolter.ch QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-py-gql.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-py-gql-0.6.1-1.fc31.src.r...
Project URL: https://github.com/lirsacc/py-gql
Description: py-gql is a pure Python GraphQL implementation aimed at creating GraphQL servers and providing common tooling.
It supports:
- Parsing the GraphQL query language and schema definition language. - Building a GraphQL type schema programmatically and from Schema Definition files (including support for schema directives). - Validating and Executing a GraphQL request against a type schema.
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=44663862
rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-py-gql-0.6.1-1.fc31.src.rpm python-py-gql.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US programmatically -> pro grammatically, pro-grammatically, programmatic ally python-py-gql.src:60: W: macro-in-comment %check python-py-gql.src:61: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} python-py-gql.src:61: W: macro-in-comment %{python3_sitelib} python-py-gql.src:61: W: macro-in-comment %{python3_version} 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
$ rpmlint python3-py-gql-0.6.1-1.fc31.noarch.rpm python3-py-gql.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US programmatically -> pro grammatically, pro-grammatically, programmatic ally python3-py-gql.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/py_gql/py.typed 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
Fedora Account System Username: fab
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1837139
Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |1707986 (PYTEST5)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1707986 [Bug 1707986] pytest-5.4.2 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1837139 Bug 1837139 depends on bug 1707986, which changed state.
Bug 1707986 Summary: pytest-5.4.2 is available https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1707986
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1837139
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 Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - You can reenable the tests now.
Package approved.
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", "Expat License". 162 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-py-gql/review-python-py- gql/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 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 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. [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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-py-gql-0.6.1-1.fc33.noarch.rpm python-py-gql-0.6.1-1.fc33.src.rpm python3-py-gql.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US programmatically -> pro grammatically, pro-grammatically, programmatic ally python3-py-gql.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/py_gql/py.typed python-py-gql.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US programmatically -> pro grammatically, pro-grammatically, programmatic ally 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1837139
--- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-py-gql
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1837139
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-6bd09ee715 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-6bd09ee715
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1837139
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-d4f9543fec has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d4f9543fec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1837139
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-d4f9543fec has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-d4f9543fec *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d4f9543fec
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=1837139
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-6bd09ee715 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-6bd09ee715 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-6bd09ee715
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=1837139
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2020-07-05 01:48:25
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-d4f9543fec has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1837139
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-6bd09ee715 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com