[Bug 1884993] New: Review Request: <main package name here> - Python connector for WiZ light devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884993
Bug ID: 1884993 Summary: Review Request: <main package name here> - Python connector for WiZ light devices 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-pywizlight.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-pywizlight-0.3.3-1.fc32.s...
Project URL: https://github.com/sbidy/pywizlight
Description: A Python connector for WiZ light devices.
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52740965
rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-pywizlight-0.3.3-1.fc32.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint python3-pywizlight-0.3.3-1.fc32.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Fedora Account System Username: fab
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884993
Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: <main |Review Request: |package name here> - Python |python-pywizlight - Python |connector for WiZ light |connector for WiZ light |devices |devices Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884993
Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1269538 (IoT)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269538 [Bug 1269538] Tracker for IoT on Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884993
Andy Mender andymenderunix@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |andymenderunix@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |andymenderunix@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884993
Andy Mender andymenderunix@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Andy Mender andymenderunix@gmail.com ---
Name: python-%{pypi_name} Version: 0.3.3
New version is out: https://github.com/sbidy/pywizlight/releases/tag/0.3.4
Otherwise looks good. Package approved!
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
===== MUST items =====
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: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-pywizlight/python- pywizlight/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]: 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. [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). [?]: 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. [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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint
Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 2.6 starting (python version = 3.8.5)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins INFO: Signal handler active Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start: cleaning package manager metadata Finish: cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 2.6 INFO: Mock Version: 2.6 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-pywizlight/python3-pywizlight-0.3.3-1.fc34.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 34 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk install /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-pywizlight/python3-pywizlight-0.3.3-1.fc34.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-pywizlight-0.3.3-1.fc34.noarch.rpm python-pywizlight-0.3.3-1.fc34.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/sbidy/pywizlight/archive/0.3.3/pywizlight-0.3.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7e6d6e0e2c34d4bd3ec4c91bb3de1c3c02144eb705217088fcdee049c26b0690 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7e6d6e0e2c34d4bd3ec4c91bb3de1c3c02144eb705217088fcdee049c26b0690
Requires -------- python3-pywizlight (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.9dist(asyncio) python3.9dist(asyncio-dgram)
Provides -------- python3-pywizlight: python-pywizlight python3-pywizlight python3.9-pywizlight python3.9dist(pywizlight) python3dist(pywizlight)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884993
--- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch --- Thanks for the review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884993
--- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pywizlight
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884993
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-df810e7478 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-df810e7478
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884993
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-6b4d49e13e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-6b4d49e13e
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884993
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-1e45db40d4 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-1e45db40d4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884993
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-6b4d49e13e 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-2020-6b4d49e13e *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-6b4d49e13e
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=1884993
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-1e45db40d4 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-2020-1e45db40d4 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-1e45db40d4
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=1884993
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-df810e7478 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-df810e7478 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-df810e7478
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=1884993
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2020-11-04 03:01:08
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-df810e7478 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=1884993
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-1e45db40d4 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=1884993
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-6b4d49e13e 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