[Bug 2134020] New: Review Request: mingw-python-wheel - MinGW Windows Python wheel library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134020
Bug ID: 2134020 Summary: Review Request: mingw-python-wheel - MinGW Windows Python wheel 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-wheel.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-wheel-0.37.1-1.fc38.src.r... Description: MinGW Windows Python wheel library Fedora Account System Username: smani
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134020
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |loganjerry@gmail.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |loganjerry@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- I will take this review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134020
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues: ======= - The License tag does not reflect the bundled copy of packaging. The python-wheel package has a License tag of "MIT and (ASL-2.0 or BSD)", which has not been converted to SPDX. I think it should be "MIT AND (Apache-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)", but check me on that.
- As with mingw-pip, both packages have a Requires on /usr/bin/python3.10.
===== 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: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* MIT License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0". 62 files have unknown license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: 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. [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. [-]: 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: [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 ------- mingw32-python3-wheel.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw64-python3-wheel.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw32-python3-wheel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/lib/python3.10/site-packages/wheel-0.37.1-py3.10.egg-info/not-zip-safe /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/lib/python3.10/site-packages/wheel-0.37.1-py3.10.egg-info/dependency_links.txt mingw64-python3-wheel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/lib/python3.10/site-packages/wheel-0.37.1-py3.10.egg-info/not-zip-safe /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/lib/python3.10/site-packages/wheel-0.37.1-py3.10.egg-info/dependency_links.txt 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- mingw64-python3-wheel.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw32-python3-wheel.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw64-python3-wheel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/lib/python3.10/site-packages/wheel-0.37.1-py3.10.egg-info/not-zip-safe /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/lib/python3.10/site-packages/wheel-0.37.1-py3.10.egg-info/dependency_links.txt mingw32-python3-wheel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/lib/python3.10/site-packages/wheel-0.37.1-py3.10.egg-info/not-zip-safe /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/lib/python3.10/site-packages/wheel-0.37.1-py3.10.egg-info/dependency_links.txt 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/w/wheel/wheel-0.37.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e9a504e793efbca1b8e0e9cb979a249cf4a0a7b5b8c9e8b65a5e39d49529c1c4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e9a504e793efbca1b8e0e9cb979a249cf4a0a7b5b8c9e8b65a5e39d49529c1c4
Requires -------- mingw32-python3-wheel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3.10
mingw64-python3-wheel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3.10
Provides -------- mingw32-python3-wheel: mingw32-python3-wheel
mingw64-python3-wheel: mingw64-python3-wheel
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2134020 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: R, Perl, PHP, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Java, C/C++, Ruby, fonts, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134020
--- Comment #3 from Sandro Mani manisandro@gmail.com --- Thanks for the review, I've addressed the issues raised:
Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-wheel.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-wheel-0.37.1-2.fc38.src.r...
%changelog * Wed Oct 19 2022 Sandro Mani manisandro@gmail.com - 0.37.1-2 - Fix license - Add host build - Filter requires on */bin/wheel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134020
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=2134020
--- Comment #5 from Sandro Mani manisandro@gmail.com --- Thanks a lot, let me know if I can exchange the favor!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134020
--- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mingw-python-wheel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134020
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-f7a5568776 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-f7a5568776
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134020
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2022-11-01 11:05:16
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-f7a5568776 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com