https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878143
Bug ID: 1878143 Summary: Review Request: python-uptime - Cross-platform uptime library 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-uptime.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-uptime-3.0.1-1.fc32.src.r...
Project URL: https://github.com/Cairnarvon/uptime
Description: This module provides a cross-platform way to retrieve system uptime and boot time.
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=51216391
rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-uptime-3.0.1-1.fc32.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint python3-uptime-* 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Fedora Account System Username: fab
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878143
Andy Mender andymenderunix@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |andymenderunix@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |andymenderunix@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878143
Andy Mender andymenderunix@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Andy Mender andymenderunix@gmail.com --- There is a bit of a chicken and egg problem with python-uptime and tests. The project itself provides tests so it's possible to add a %check phase to the SPEC file to enable testing. However, the project doesn't use GitHub release tarballs and versioning is limited to PyPi (via setup.py). We can ask upstream whether it would be okay for them to start generating git release tags as part of their PyPi-centric version-bumping routine. What do you think?
Regardless, everything looks in order so 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]: 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. Review: not quite sure what fedora-review means here. There is a SO file inside %{python3_sitearch}/%{pypi_name}/ called _posix.cpython-39-x86_64-linux-gnu.so, but it's an internal module for python-uptime. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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: "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "Unknown or generated". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-uptime/python- uptime/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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 [?]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: 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. [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: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-uptime Review: not needed in this case. [x]: 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. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. Review: mentioned in an earlier comment. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-uptime-3.0.1-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm python-uptime-debugsource-3.0.1-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm python-uptime-3.0.1-1.fc32.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: no installed packages by name python3-uptime (none): E: no installed packages by name python-uptime-debugsource 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-uptime: /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/uptime/_posix.cpython-39-x86_64-linux-gnu.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/u/uptime/uptime-3.0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7c300254775b807ce46e3dcbcda30aa3b9a204b9c57a7ac1e79ee6dbe3942973 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7c300254775b807ce46e3dcbcda30aa3b9a204b9c57a7ac1e79ee6dbe3942973
Requires -------- python3-uptime (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH)
python-uptime-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- python3-uptime: python-uptime python3-uptime python3-uptime(x86-64) python3.9-uptime python3.9dist(uptime) python3dist(uptime)
python-uptime-debugsource: python-uptime-debugsource python-uptime-debugsource(x86-64)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878143
--- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch --- (In reply to Andy Mender from comment #1)
There is a bit of a chicken and egg problem with python-uptime and tests. The project itself provides tests so it's possible to add a %check phase to the SPEC file to enable testing. However, the project doesn't use GitHub release tarballs and versioning is limited to PyPi (via setup.py). We can ask upstream whether it would be okay for them to start generating git release tags as part of their PyPi-centric version-bumping routine. What do you think?
I opened an issue about the missing tests and I will talk to the developer of the package that depends on python-uptime if he is willing to move to a different module. python-uptime looks a little dead. The problem is that there are not much alternatives.
Anyways, thanks for the review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878143
--- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-uptime
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878143
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-3d0d98d39d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-3d0d98d39d
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878143
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-5cbb79fe31 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-5cbb79fe31
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878143
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-d5d438bef9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d5d438bef9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878143
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-a84bbc290a has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-a84bbc290a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878143
--- Comment #8 from Andy Mender andymenderunix@gmail.com ---
I opened an issue about the missing tests and I will talk to the developer of the package that depends on python-uptime if he is willing to move to a different module. python-uptime looks a little dead. The problem is that there are not much alternatives.
Anyways, thanks for the review.
Thanks for the heads-up and you're welcome! :)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878143
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-5cbb79fe31 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-2020-5cbb79fe31 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-5cbb79fe31
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=1878143
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-a84bbc290a has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-a84bbc290a
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=1878143
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-d5d438bef9 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-d5d438bef9 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d5d438bef9
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=1878143
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-3d0d98d39d has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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-2020-3d0d98d39d *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-3d0d98d39d
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=1878143
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2020-09-23 17:12:05
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-5cbb79fe31 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878143
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-d5d438bef9 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=1878143
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-3d0d98d39d has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878143
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-a84bbc290a has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com