https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
Bug ID: 1876108 Summary: Review Request: python-pyfiglet - Pure-python FIGlet implementation Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: fedora@lyes.eu QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
Lyes Saadi fedora@lyes.eu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1876109
Spec URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/present/python-pyfiglet.spec SRPM URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/present/python-pyfiglet-0.8.post1-1.fc32....
Copr Build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/lyessaadi/present/build/1650401/
Description: pyfiglet is a full port of FIGlet (http://www.figlet.org/) into pure python. It takes ASCII text and renders it in ASCII art fonts (like the title above, which is the 'block' font).
Fedora Account System Username: lyessaadi
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876109 [Bug 1876109] Review Request: python-asciimatics - A cross-platform package to replace curses and create ASCII animations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
Lyes Saadi fedora@lyes.eu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1876110
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876110 [Bug 1876110] Review Request: present - A terminal-based presentation tool with colors and effects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
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=1876108
Andy Mender andymenderunix@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Andy Mender andymenderunix@gmail.com --- Package approved. Consider adding the tests from https://github.com/pwaller/pyfiglet/blob/master/pyfiglet/test.py under %check.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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", "*No copyright* Expat License", "NTP License (legal disclaimer)", "NTP License". 391 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-pyfiglet/copr- build-1650401/review-python-pyfiglet/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 [?]: 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 92160 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 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]: 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: upstream doesn't provide pytest tests, but custom ones which might be worth adding under %check: https://github.com/pwaller/pyfiglet/blob/master/pyfiglet/test.py [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-pyfiglet-0.8.post1-1.fc34.noarch.rpm python-pyfiglet-0.8.post1-1.fc34.src.rpm python3-pyfiglet.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/python3-pyfiglet/figfont.txt 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. (none): E: no installed packages by name python3-pyfiglet
Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/pyfiglet/pyfiglet-0.8.post1... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c6c2321755d09267b438ec7b936825a4910fec696292139e664ca8670e103639 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c6c2321755d09267b438ec7b936825a4910fec696292139e664ca8670e103639
Requires -------- python3-pyfiglet (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.9dist(setuptools) python3dist(setuptools)
Provides -------- python3-pyfiglet: python-pyfiglet python3-pyfiglet python3.9-pyfiglet python3.9dist(pyfiglet) python3dist(pyfiglet)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
Lyes Saadi fedora@lyes.eu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #2 from Lyes Saadi fedora@lyes.eu --- Thank you for the very quick review :)!
I will add the tests ;)!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
Lyes Saadi fedora@lyes.eu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Blocks| |182235 (FE-Legal) Resolution|--- |CANTFIX Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review- Last Closed| |2020-09-05 16:49:14
--- Comment #3 from Lyes Saadi fedora@lyes.eu --- Umm... I'm abandoning this review (as well as python-asciimatics and present) after discovering that EACH FIGLET FONT HAS A DIFFERENT LICENSE...
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235 [Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
--- Comment #4 from Lyes Saadi fedora@lyes.eu --- Sorry Andy Mender for having to close this even though you spent time reviewing it...
I should've checked before, but I somehow forgot it... It's just that those cases are so rare...
Hopefully, nothing was submitted to Fedora's repos yet -_-'...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
--- Comment #5 from Andy Mender andymenderunix@gmail.com --- No worries at all! I should've checked it on my end as well...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
--- Comment #6 from Lyes Saadi fedora@lyes.eu ---
Hopefully, nothing was submitted to Fedora's repos yet -_-'...
I meant "Fortunately" :P.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
peter.brittain.os@gmail.com peter.brittain.os@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |peter.brittain.os@gmail.com
--- Comment #7 from peter.brittain.os@gmail.com peter.brittain.os@gmail.com --- I just spotted this when searching for something related... Are you aware that we tidied up the pyfiglet fonts to address distribution rights as of https://github.com/pwaller/pyfiglet/pull/61/files?
If there's anything else you need to address the font licences, do please let me know.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
Lyes Saadi fedora@lyes.eu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|CANTFIX |--- Status|CLOSED |POST Keywords| |Reopened
--- Comment #8 from Lyes Saadi fedora@lyes.eu --- Hello :D!
I would like, first of all, to thank you for reaching out to us about that font issue. At the time, I didn't reach upstream for this issue because of how big the issue was, but in retrospect, I maybe should've since you seem to be ready to address this.
I am still interested in maintaining this package, and, since it already was approved, I'd be happy to maintain it in Fedora if all issues were solved, preferably with the agreement of the reviewer of this package review, Andy Mender.
Are you aware that we tidied up the pyfiglet fonts to address distribution rights as of https://github.com/pwaller/pyfiglet/pull/61/files?
I was not aware of that, and even though it certainly is a good step, it is not enough in itself, as I also need to know and document into the Fedora spec file the License of each font, unless they are licensed under the main package's license.
Unfortunately, when looking at the package's history, the farthest I can go is to a zip file with no license...
I have opened an issue upstream #89, so the discussion can be continued there :)!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
Andy Mender andymenderunix@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review- |fedora-review? Status|POST |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #9 from Andy Mender andymenderunix@gmail.com --- Changing status to ASSIGNED, since this wasn't fully approved yet.
Once the font issues are solved, I will have another look at this request :).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
--- Comment #10 from Lyes Saadi fedora@lyes.eu --- Thank you for taking this back!
I will produce a new version of the package soon with the new font system (as this was solved upstream recently), and I will be mailing Fedora Legal's mailing list about potential issues with the rest of the fonts!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
--- Comment #11 from Lyes Saadi fedora@lyes.eu --- Spec URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-pyfiglet/python-pyfiglet.s... SRPM URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-pyfiglet/python-pyfiglet-0...
Finally updated it :D ! Sorry for being that late... Ran into a weird bug with pyproject. It's my first time dealing with it, so I hope I've respected the new Python Guidelines :) !
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=77716901
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
--- Comment #12 from Lyes Saadi fedora@lyes.eu --- Oops, forgot to update the License field!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
--- Comment #13 from Lyes Saadi fedora@lyes.eu --- Spec URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-pyfiglet/python-pyfiglet.s... SRPM URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-pyfiglet/python-pyfiglet-0...
Done :)! Should we remove FE-legal, or do we need to consult them before? I will ask them anyway since I'm sending an e-mail right now to the legal mailing list about FIGlet font licensing for the other fonts.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
--- Comment #14 from Lyes Saadi fedora@lyes.eu --- Sent the e-mail to Fedora Legal: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
--- Comment #15 from peter.brittain.os@gmail.com peter.brittain.os@gmail.com --- Looks like the attempt to get all the fonts in has ground to a halt... That said, we now have a package that builds with only the subset of fonts that have licenses that are compatible with Fedora. Any reason we can't just add that now (and create a new issue if the legal trail ever gets resolved)?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
--- Comment #16 from Lyes Saadi fedora@lyes.eu --- No reason really. I'll try to ask fedora-legal again (maybe more directly on IRC/Matrix) at the end of the week (I'm a bit busy right now).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|182235 (FE-Legal) |
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235 [Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
--- Comment #17 from Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.com --- FE-Legal block lifted. The assumption for now is that this is just a request to package the figlet fonts in the fonts-standard directory. I actually don't currently have an opinion on the fonts-contrib issue, just haven't looked into it sufficiently.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
--- Comment #18 from Lyes Saadi fedora@lyes.eu --- Thank you so much :D! This will indeed only package fonts-contrib! Andy Mender, are you still up to review this? (Otherwise, I'll just ask for a review swap to speed this up, since old packages rarely get reviews.)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
Lyes Saadi fedora@lyes.eu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(andymenderunix@gm | |ail.com)
--- Comment #19 from Lyes Saadi fedora@lyes.eu --- Hello Andy :),
Are you still interested in reviewing this?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
Lyes Saadi fedora@lyes.eu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(fedora@lyes.eu) |
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review
Lyes Saadi fedora@lyes.eu has canceled Package Review package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org's request for Lyes Saadi fedora@lyes.eu's needinfo: Bug 1876108: Review Request: python-pyfiglet - Pure-python FIGlet implementation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
--- Comment #22 from Lyes Saadi fedora@lyes.eu --- This package will need an update to match new guidelines, will do that and then request a review swap.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
--- Comment #23 from Lyes Saadi fedora@lyes.eu --- Spec URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-pyfiglet/python-pyfiglet.s... SRPM URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-pyfiglet/python-pyfiglet-1...
Finally taking care of this : Updating to 1.0.2
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=110895448
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
--- Comment #24 from Lyes Saadi fedora@lyes.eu --- Spec URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-pyfiglet/python-pyfiglet.s... SRPM URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-pyfiglet/python-pyfiglet-1...
Forgot that we are moving to SPDX licenses. I also clarified the message specifying all file licenses.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |loganjerry@gmail.com CC| |loganjerry@gmail.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #25 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- I will take this review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
--- Comment #26 from Lyes Saadi fedora@lyes.eu --- Hi ! Thank you ! That was so quick :O !
Just to notify you that I since noticed that the `cp` in %prep should be a `mv` to preserve timestamps and that the r option on the `pyproject_buildrequires is useless !
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
--- Comment #27 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- I've been on the lookout for review swap offers, since my own request for review swaps has been languishing for about 3 weeks. If you wouldn't mind doing something on this list, I would be very grateful: https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/soplex-and-scip/98387. The pdqsort review is done.
I have noted your two changes. I'll have the review done here in a few minutes, I think.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
--- Comment #28 from Lyes Saadi fedora@lyes.eu --- Spec URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-pyfiglet/python-pyfiglet.s... SRPM URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-pyfiglet/python-pyfiglet-1...
It doesn't seem that the timestamp issue is resolved ? Well, I don't think I can do much about that since that looks to be in the pyproject scripts. Anyway, I will take something on that list to review !
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=110900326
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
--- Comment #29 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues ====== - The License field is still not quite right. The license that licensecheck calls "NTP License (legal disclaimer)" is called "HPND" in SPDX parlance. That is the license for these files: pyfiglet/fonts-standard/5x8.flf pyfiglet/fonts-standard/chartr.flf pyfiglet/fonts-standard/chartri.flf pyfiglet/fonts-standard/xchartr.flf pyfiglet/fonts-standard/xchartri.flf pyfiglet/fonts/5x8.flf pyfiglet/fonts/chartr.flf pyfiglet/fonts/chartri.flf pyfiglet/fonts/xchartr.flf pyfiglet/fonts/xchartri.flf
- I don't think that removing the shebangs from pyfiglet/__init__.py and pyfiglet/test.py is the right thing to do. Both are made to be executable. Instead, the shebangs should be fixed in %prep; e.g., like this:
%py3_shebang_fix pyfiglet/{__init__,test}.py
Then, because the installer strips the executable bits off, add them back in %install instead of removing the shebangs:
chmod 0755 %{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}/{__init__,test}.py
- Please consider not building for i686, by adding this to the spec file:
ExcludeArch: %{ix86}
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval
- Note the file-not-utf8 warning from rpmlint below. The file doc/figfont.txt is encoded with ISO8859-1 instead of UTF-8.
- The LICENSE file in the dist-info is marked as a license already, so there is no need to include it a second time with %license:
$ rpm -qLp python3-pyfiglet-1.0.2-1.fc40.noarch.rpm /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/pyfiglet-1.0.2.dist-info/LICENSE /usr/share/licenses/python3-pyfiglet/LICENSE
- The comment in %check is misleading. The pytest tests fail, not because of a missing subprocess module (which is builtin to python), but rather because they try to use the doh font from fonts-contrib. We have removed fonts-contrib for license reasons. I wonder if upstream could be prevailed upon to use a font in fonts-standard for the tests.
===== 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", "X11 License", "NTP License (legal disclaimer)", "BSD 3-Clause License", "NTP License". 27 files have unknown license. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 82738 bytes in 2 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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: [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep [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
===== 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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. [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]: 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-pyfiglet-1.0.2-1.fc40.noarch.rpm python-pyfiglet-1.0.2-1.fc40.src.rpm ================================================ rpmlint session starts ================================================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp4tabv27y')] checks: 31, packages: 2
python-pyfiglet.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: pyfiglet-1.0.2-no-contrib-font.tar.gz python3-pyfiglet.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/python3-pyfiglet/figfont.txt ================= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s =================
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1
python3-pyfiglet.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/python3-pyfiglet/figfont.txt 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Requires -------- python3-pyfiglet (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi)
Provides -------- python3-pyfiglet: python-pyfiglet python3-pyfiglet python3.12-pyfiglet python3.12dist(pyfiglet) python3dist(pyfiglet)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1876108 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, SugarActivity, Haskell, fonts, Java, Ocaml, C/C++, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/pwaller/ | |pyfiglet
--- Comment #30 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6821183 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
--- Comment #31 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6821187 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
--- Comment #32 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6821189 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
--- Comment #33 from Lyes Saadi fedora@lyes.eu ---
- The License field is still not quite right. The license that licensecheck
calls "NTP License (legal disclaimer)" is called "HPND" in SPDX parlance. That is the license for these files:
Indeed! I missed that, thanks!
- I don't think that removing the shebangs from pyfiglet/__init__.py and
pyfiglet/test.py is the right thing to do. Both are made to be executable. Instead, the shebangs should be fixed in %prep; e.g., like this:
%py3_shebang_fix pyfiglet/{__init__,test}.py
Then, because the installer strips the executable bits off, add them back in %install instead of removing the shebangs:
chmod 0755 %{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}/{__init__,test}.py
Indeed! I should've never removed the shebang.
- Please consider not building for i686, by adding this to the spec file:
ExcludeArch: %{ix86}
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval
Will add!
- Note the file-not-utf8 warning from rpmlint below. The file doc/figfont.txt
is encoded with ISO8859-1 instead of UTF-8.
Whoops, missed the error, will PR a UTF-8 file.
The LICENSE file in the dist-info is marked as a license already, so there is no need to include it a second time with %license:
$ rpm -qLp python3-pyfiglet-1.0.2-1.fc40.noarch.rpm /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/pyfiglet-1.0.2.dist-info/LICENSE /usr/share/licenses/python3-pyfiglet/LICENSE
Oh, neat ! Didn't know pyproject did that !
- The comment in %check is misleading. The pytest tests fail, not because of a missing subprocess module (which is builtin to python), but rather because they try to use the doh font from fonts-contrib. We have removed fonts-contrib for license reasons. I wonder if upstream could be prevailed upon to use a font in fonts-standard for the tests.
Oh, I didn't recheck why I disabled tests, I also thought that my explanation was weird when I got back to the package. I'll submit a merge request changing the font used for tests.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
--- Comment #34 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- (In reply to Lyes Saadi from comment #33)
Oh, neat ! Didn't know pyproject did that !
It depends on the build system. If I remember correctly, flit does not do that. It will copy the license file into the dist-info, but doesn't mark it as a license file.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
--- Comment #35 from Lyes Saadi fedora@lyes.eu --- Spec URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-pyfiglet/python-pyfiglet.s... SRPM URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-pyfiglet/python-pyfiglet-1...
Adressing review comments
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=110924616
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #36 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- That looks good. This package is APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
--- Comment #37 from Lyes Saadi fedora@lyes.eu --- Spec URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-pyfiglet/python-pyfiglet.s... SRPM URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-pyfiglet/python-pyfiglet-1...
Fix tests & convert file to UTF-8
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=110927175
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
--- Comment #38 from Lyes Saadi fedora@lyes.eu --- Thanks for the approval! Ended up fixing tests and converting the file to UTF-8 using iconv.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
--- Comment #39 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Nice! Thanks for fixing those two issues.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
--- Comment #40 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pyfiglet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
--- Comment #41 from Lyes Saadi fedora@lyes.eu --- Thank you for the review, Jerry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
--- Comment #42 from Lyes Saadi fedora@lyes.eu --- Damn, fbrnch forces a nice comment, sorry if that was weird to thank twice xD !
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108
Lyes Saadi fedora@lyes.eu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Last Closed|2020-09-05 16:49:14 |2023-12-28 02:20:01
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com