[Bug 1460757] New: Review Request: python-json-logger - A python library adding a json log formatter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460757
Bug ID: 1460757 Summary: Review Request: python-json-logger - A python library adding a json log formatter Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: karlthered@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-json-logger.json SRPM URL: https://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-json-logger-0.1.7-1.fc26.src... Description: A python library adding a json log formatter Fedora Account System Username: hguemar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460757
Haïkel Guémar karlthered@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1427510 (RDO-PIKE)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1427510 [Bug 1427510] Tracker: Blockers and Review requests for new RDO Pike packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460757
--- Comment #1 from Haïkel Guémar karlthered@gmail.com --- A dependency to python-daiquiri.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460757
Alfredo Moralejo amoralej@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |amoralej@redhat.com
--- Comment #2 from Alfredo Moralejo amoralej@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-json-logger.spec SRPM URL: https://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-json-logger-0.1.7-1.fc26.src...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460757
--- Comment #3 from Alfredo Moralejo amoralej@redhat.com --- Until https://github.com/madzak/python-json-logger/pull/49 is merged and given that the LICENSE file is in the repo but not in the tarball, we may copy it as an additional source file and include in python{2,3} packages?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460757
Alfredo Moralejo amoralej@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |amoralej@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460757
--- Comment #4 from Alfredo Moralejo amoralej@redhat.com --- (In reply to Alfredo Moralejo from comment #3)
Until https://github.com/madzak/python-json-logger/pull/49 is merged and given that the LICENSE file is in the repo but not in the tarball, we may copy it as an additional source file and include in python{2,3} packages?
The text in fedora review seems clear:
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.
As it's not in the source package, let's leave it as-is.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460757
Alfredo Moralejo amoralej@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Alfredo Moralejo amoralej@redhat.com ---
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. [-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp /rdo-infra-playbooks/1460757-python-json-logger/licensecheck.txt [-]: 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. [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. [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]: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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. [ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: 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 python2 -json-logger , python3-json-logger [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [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: python2-json-logger-0.1.7-1.fc25.noarch.rpm python3-json-logger-0.1.7-1.fc25.noarch.rpm python-json-logger-0.1.7-1.fc25.src.rpm python2-json-logger.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) formatter -> formatted, for matter, for-matter python2-json-logger.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US formatter -> formatted, for matter, for-matter python2-json-logger.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-json-logger.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) formatter -> formatted, for matter, for-matter python3-json-logger.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US formatter -> formatted, for matter, for-matter python3-json-logger.noarch: W: no-documentation python-json-logger.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) formatter -> formatted, for matter, for-matter python-json-logger.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US formatter -> formatted, for matter, for-matter python-json-logger.src:63: W: macro-in-comment %check python-json-logger.src:64: W: macro-in-comment %{__python2} python-json-logger.src:66: W: macro-in-comment %{__python3} python-json-logger.src:67: W: macro-in-comment %endif 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-json-logger.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) formatter -> formatted, for matter, for-matter python3-json-logger.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US formatter -> formatted, for matter, for-matter python3-json-logger.noarch: W: no-documentation python2-json-logger.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) formatter -> formatted, for matter, for-matter python2-json-logger.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US formatter -> formatted, for matter, for-matter python2-json-logger.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
Requires -------- python3-json-logger (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-setuptools
python2-json-logger (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-setuptools
Provides -------- python3-json-logger: python3-json-logger python3.5dist(python-json-logger) python3dist(python-json-logger)
python2-json-logger: python-json-logger python2-json-logger python2.7dist(python-json-logger) python2dist(python-json-logger)
Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/python-json-logger/python-j... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : aeee3edcf155e1d8bf2fb11330b7cc24b2a9488607d8a96ff7dd7db0a002b4d3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : aeee3edcf155e1d8bf2fb11330b7cc24b2a9488607d8a96ff7dd7db0a002b4d3
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1460757 -m fedora-25-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-25-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Some comments:
- License file is not included in source package file. It has been requested upstream to include it in https://github.com/madzak/python-json-logger/issues/50
- Unit test files are not included in source package files so unit tests can't be run in %check. It has been requested upstream to include it in https://github.com/madzak/python-json-logger/issues/50
Package is APPROVED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460757
--- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-json-logger
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460757
--- Comment #7 from Haïkel Guémar karlthered@gmail.com --- Thanks, if license file is not included in tarball, it is recommended not to copy it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460757
Haïkel Guémar karlthered@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2017-08-03 16:09:02
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com