https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134019
Bug ID: 2134019 Summary: Review Request: mingw-python-pip - MinGW Windows Python pip library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: manisandro@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-pip.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-pip-22.2.2-2.fc38.src.rpm Description: MinGW Windows Python pip library Fedora Account System Username: smani
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134019
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |loganjerry@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review? Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |loganjerry@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- I will take this review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134019
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues: ======= - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/jamesjer/2134019-mingw-python-pip/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/
It looks like the tarball in the SRPM is from github, but Source0 claims it is from pypi.
- Both binary packages have a Requires on /usr/bin/python3.10. Is that correct, or should they have a Requires on /usr/bin/mingw32-python3 and /usr/bin/mingw64-python3, respectively?
The non-executable-script warnings from rpmlint may be related, as those shebangs are rewritten to point to /usr/bin/python, I believe.
- The License tag is not correct, as it does not account for the vendored libraries included in the binary packages. The python-pip package has a big comment about that, along with a more complex License tag. It has not been converted to SPDX.
- In conjunction with that issue, many of the vendored libraries have their own license files, none of which are installed with %license. I see that the python-pip package does this as well. I'm not sure that is correct.
===== 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. [!]: 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", "*No copyright* MIT License BSD 2-Clause License Apache License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License 2.0", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "CNRI Python Open Source GPL Compatible License Agreement", "BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* [generated file]", "BSD 2-Clause License", "ISC License", "[generated file]". 861 files have unknown license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/lib/python3.10, /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/lib, /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/lib/python3.10/site-packages, /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/bin, /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/bin, /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32, /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/lib/python3.10/site- packages, /usr/i686-w64-mingw32, /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/lib, /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/lib/python3.10 [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]: 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 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]: 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. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [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. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /home/jamesjer/2134019-mingw-python-pip/srpm- unpacked/mingw-python-pip.spec See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Rpmlint ------- mingw32-python3-pip.noarch: W: pem-certificate /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/lib/python3.10/site-packages/pip/_vendor/certifi/cacert.pem mingw64-python3-pip.noarch: W: pem-certificate /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/lib/python3.10/site-packages/pip/_vendor/certifi/cacert.pem mingw32-python3-pip.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/lib/python3.10/site-packages/pip/_vendor/distro/distro.py 644 /usr/bin/env python mingw32-python3-pip.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/lib/python3.10/site-packages/pip/_vendor/requests/certs.py 644 /usr/bin/env python mingw64-python3-pip.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/lib/python3.10/site-packages/pip/_vendor/distro/distro.py 644 /usr/bin/env python mingw64-python3-pip.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/lib/python3.10/site-packages/pip/_vendor/requests/certs.py 644 /usr/bin/env python mingw32-python3-pip.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw64-python3-pip.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw32-python3-pip.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/lib/python3.10/site-packages/pip-22.2.2-py3.10.egg-info/not-zip-safe /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/lib/python3.10/site-packages/pip-22.2.2-py3.10.egg-info/dependency_links.txt mingw64-python3-pip.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/lib/python3.10/site-packages/pip-22.2.2-py3.10.egg-info/not-zip-safe /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/lib/python3.10/site-packages/pip-22.2.2-py3.10.egg-info/dependency_links.txt
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- mingw64-python3-pip.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/lib/python3.10/site-packages/pip/_vendor/distro/distro.py 644 /usr/bin/env python mingw64-python3-pip.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/lib/python3.10/site-packages/pip/_vendor/requests/certs.py 644 /usr/bin/env python mingw32-python3-pip.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/lib/python3.10/site-packages/pip/_vendor/distro/distro.py 644 /usr/bin/env python mingw32-python3-pip.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/lib/python3.10/site-packages/pip/_vendor/requests/certs.py 644 /usr/bin/env python mingw64-python3-pip.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw32-python3-pip.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw64-python3-pip.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/lib/python3.10/site-packages/pip-22.2.2-py3.10.egg-info/not-zip-safe /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/lib/python3.10/site-packages/pip-22.2.2-py3.10.egg-info/dependency_links.txt mingw32-python3-pip.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/lib/python3.10/site-packages/pip-22.2.2-py3.10.egg-info/not-zip-safe /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/lib/python3.10/site-packages/pip-22.2.2-py3.10.egg-info/dependency_links.txt
Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/pip/pip-22.2.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ef1a33855a4b37f35da6ae3cdbb2219a956b922783f5870f89f0bc7975fe2f14 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3fd1929db052f056d7a998439176d3333fa1b3f6c1ad881de1885c0717608a4b diff -r also reports differences
Requires -------- mingw32-python3-pip (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3.10
mingw64-python3-pip (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3.10
Provides -------- mingw32-python3-pip: mingw32-python3-pip
mingw64-python3-pip: mingw64-python3-pip
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2134019 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: Ruby, Java, C/C++, SugarActivity, fonts, R, Haskell, Perl, Ocaml, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134019
--- Comment #3 from Sandro Mani manisandro@gmail.com --- Many thanks for the review and sorry for the late reply:
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in
the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/jamesjer/2134019-mingw-python-pip/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/
It looks like the tarball in the SRPM is from github, but Source0 claims it is from pypi.
Hmm might be that I had a previous source tarball lying around, I've regenerated the SRPM
Both binary packages have a Requires on /usr/bin/python3.10. Is that correct, or should they have a Requires on /usr/bin/mingw32-python3 and /usr/bin/mingw64-python3, respectively?
The non-executable-script warnings from rpmlint may be related, as those shebangs are rewritten to point to /usr/bin/python, I believe.
Indeed, fixed by dropping the shebang
- The License tag is not correct, as it does not account for the vendored libraries included in the binary packages. The python-pip package has a big comment about that, along with a more complex License tag. It has not been converted to SPDX.
Fixed, and converted to SPDX
- In conjunction with that issue, many of the vendored libraries have their own license files, none of which are installed with %license. I see that the python-pip package does this as well. I'm not sure that is correct.
All license files are now installed.
Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-pip.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-pip-22.2.2-3.fc38.src.rpm
%changelog * Sat Oct 15 2022 Sandro Mani manisandro@gmail.com - 22.2.2-3 - Strip shebang from non-exec scripts - Install all license files - Use SPDX license identifiers, list full license breakup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134019
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Looks good! This package is APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134019
--- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mingw-python-pip
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134019
Sandro Mani manisandro@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2022-11-01 12:05:07
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com