[Bug 2141867] New: Review Request: python-flake8-builtins - Check for python builtins being used as variables or parameters
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141867
Bug ID: 2141867 Summary: Review Request: python-flake8-builtins - Check for python builtins being used as variables or parameters Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: logans@cottsay.net QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-flake8-builtins/python-flake8-builti... SRPM URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-flake8-builtins/python-flake8-builti...
Description: Python allows to override builtin names, but although could be useful in some really specific use cases, the general approach is to not do that as code then can suddenly break without a clear trace.
Fedora Account System Username: cottsay Target branches: f36 f37 epel9 Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94030752
Thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141867
Wayne Sun gsun@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |gsun@redhat.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Wayne Sun gsun@redhat.com --- Similar to bug 2141871, could you do a mass update for bug 2141867, 2141866, 2141868, 2141870 and 2143071 on:
1) the description as variable 2) not use %srcname in URL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141867
--- Comment #2 from Scott K Logan logans@cottsay.net --- Spec URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-flake8-builtins/python-flake8-builti... SRPM URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-flake8-builtins/python-flake8-builti... Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94398905
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141867
Wayne Sun gsun@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mhroncok@redhat.com
--- Comment #3 from Wayne Sun gsun@redhat.com --- This is informal review as I'm not sponsored.
The license in the spec is GPL-2.0-only, and in upstream repo: In the setup.py: https://github.com/gforcada/flake8-builtins/blob/master/setup.py#L29 https://github.com/gforcada/flake8-builtins/blob/master/setup.py#LL49C14-L49...
It matches as no "later" specified in the license field.
With rpmlint, there are warning with invalid-license GPL-2.0-only:
# rpmlint srpm/python-flake8-builtins.spec =================================================================== rpmlint session starts =================================================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1
# rpmlint srpm/python-flake8-builtins-2.0.1-2.fc38.src.rpm =================================================================== rpmlint session starts =================================================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1
python-flake8-builtins.src: W: invalid-license GPL-2.0-only
# rpmlint results/python3-flake8-builtins-2.0.1-2.fc38.noarch.rpm =================================================================== rpmlint session starts =================================================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1
python3-flake8-builtins.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL-2.0-only ==================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s ====================================
@Miro GPL-2.0-only is in the allowed license list for fedora: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/
is it correct?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141867
--- Comment #4 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- Yes. You need to install a new package to have the SPDX license identifiers recognized by rpmlint:
dnf install rpmlint-fedora-license-data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141867
--- Comment #5 from Wayne Sun gsun@redhat.com --- (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #4)
Yes. You need to install a new package to have the SPDX license identifiers recognized by rpmlint:
dnf install rpmlint-fedora-license-data
Thanks, after installed the package it all pass now:
# rpmlint results/python3-flake8-builtins-2.0.1-2.fc38.noarch.rpm =================================================================== rpmlint session starts =================================================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/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/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1
==================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s ====================================
# rpmlint srpm/python-flake8-builtins-2.0.1-2.fc38.src.rpm =================================================================== rpmlint session starts =================================================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/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/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1
==================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s ====================================
The package require:
Requires -------- python3-flake8-builtins (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.11dist(flake8)
with in the setup.py:
https://github.com/gforcada/flake8-builtins/blob/master/setup.py#L54
so it's accurate, with trying install on my local laptop it also show the right required and provided version info.
Fedora-review with manually check:
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== 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. [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", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* [generated file]", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2". [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. [x]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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: [-]: 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. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/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: 31, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/gforcada/flake8-builtins/archive/2.0.1/flake8-builtins-2.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 05f0731ccf5b670ba8d9d68d226936eb4a6f828e1622ceedc388936f54432c16 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 05f0731ccf5b670ba8d9d68d226936eb4a6f828e1622ceedc388936f54432c16
Requires -------- python3-flake8-builtins (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.11dist(flake8)
Provides -------- python3-flake8-builtins: python-flake8-builtins python3-flake8-builtins python3.11-flake8-builtins python3.11dist(flake8-builtins) python3dist(flake8-builtins)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2141867 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, C/C++, SugarActivity, Perl, Haskell, PHP, Java, R, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141867
Wayne Sun gsun@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |gsun@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review+ Status|NEW |POST
--- Comment #6 from Wayne Sun gsun@redhat.com --- The package is approved and I've been sponsored as packager, move to POST.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141867
Scott K Logan logans@cottsay.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Link ID| |Fedora Pagure | |releng/fedora-scm-requests/ | |issue/49831
--- Comment #7 from Scott K Logan logans@cottsay.net ---
The package is approved and I've been sponsored as packager, move to POST.
Thanks, and congrats on sponsorship!
--scott
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141867
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-dad8b1b7c9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-dad8b1b7c9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141867
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2023-01-17 19:06:55
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-dad8b1b7c9 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141867
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-892a0b73f2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-892a0b73f2
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-5d669599df has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-5d669599df
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141867
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-892a0b73f2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-892a0b73f2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141867
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-892a0b73f2 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-892a0b73f2 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-892a0b73f2
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=2141867
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-4f60a75c31 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-4f60a75c31
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=2141867
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-5d669599df has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-5d669599df *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-5d669599df
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=2141867
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-4f60a75c31 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141867
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-892a0b73f2 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141867
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-5d669599df has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com