[Bug 1804307] New: Review Request: python3-jack-client - JACK Audio Connection Kit (JACK) Client for Python 3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1804307
Bug ID: 1804307 Summary: Review Request: python3-jack-client - JACK Audio Connection Kit (JACK) Client for Python 3 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: erich@ericheickmeyer.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://pagure.io/python3-jack-client/raw/master/f/python3-jack-client.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/eeickmeyer/Jam-Incoming/f...
Description: Python 3 module that provides bindings for the JACK library. The module is able to create audio input and output ports, also provides the functionality to manage MIDI ports.
This package installs the library for Python 3.
Fedora Account System Username: eeickmeyer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1804307
Erich Eickmeyer erich@ericheickmeyer.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1804307
Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |michel@michel-slm.name Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review? | |needinfo?(erich@ericheickme | |yer.com)
--- Comment #1 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name --- I can sponsor.
So far most things look fine, but the source package naming does not match the guidelines: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/
(the rationale is that the Python major version might change -- or your package might get branched for EPEL where we might build against multiple Python major/minor version combination -- so the Python version should not be hardcoded in the source package name).
Could you rename to python-jack-client (without 3)?
If you start with `rpmdev-newspec -t python python-jack-client` you'll get a boilerplate Python template with the right stubs in place to handle the source and binary name mismatch, and just need to move over your existing code.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1804307
Erich Eickmeyer erich@ericheickmeyer.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(erich@ericheickme | |yer.com) |
--- Comment #2 from Erich Eickmeyer erich@ericheickmeyer.com --- Thanks, Michael.
I made the fixes you requested.
New files as follows:
SPEC URL: https://pagure.io/python-jack-client/raw/master/f/python-jack-client.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/eeickmeyer/Jam-Incoming/f...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1804307
Erich Eickmeyer erich@ericheickmeyer.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |python3-jack-client - JACK |python-jack-client - JACK |Audio Connection Kit (JACK) |Audio Connection Kit (JACK) |Client for Python 3 |Client for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1804307
Erich Eickmeyer erich@ericheickmeyer.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(michel@michel-slm | |.name)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1804307
--- Comment #3 from Erich Eickmeyer erich@ericheickmeyer.com --- Replaced pkgconfig(jack) with jack-audio-connection-kit as Requires. Needs actual Jack, not the devel files. Generated new links:
SPEC URL: https://pagure.io/python-jack-client/raw/master/f/python-jack-client.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/eeickmeyer/Jam-Incoming/f...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1804307
Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(michel@michel-slm | |.name) |
--- Comment #4 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name --- Re-reviewing now
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1804307
Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |michel@michel-slm.name Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name --- TL;DR looks good, APPROVED
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [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. [-]: 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 20480 bytes in 3 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: 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: [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: 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). [?]: 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. [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]: 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 ------- Checking: python-jack-client-0.5.2-1.fc33.noarch.rpm python-jack-client-0.5.2-1.fc33.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/spatialaudio/jackclient-python/archive/0.5.2/JACK-Client-... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6bc929be23191e632edd81350beb59784e2ff90eedc09c3613dcccfc7508b7b1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6bc929be23191e632edd81350beb59784e2ff90eedc09c3613dcccfc7508b7b1
Requires -------- python-jack-client (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jack-audio-connection-kit python(abi) python3-cffi python3.8dist(cffi)
Provides -------- python-jack-client: python-jack-client python3.8dist(jack-client) python3dist(jack-client)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1804307 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -o --uniqueext jack Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: C/C++, Perl, R, Java, Haskell, SugarActivity, PHP, fonts, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1804307
--- Comment #6 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name --- I've just added you to the packager group. Welcome! This should provide the next steps to getting this imported, please feel free to ping me with any questions
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers?rd=Pa...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1804307
--- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-jack-client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1804307
Erich Eickmeyer erich@ericheickmeyer.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2020-03-08 22:06:43
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1804307
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-a165853141 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-a165853141
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1804307
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-a165853141 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-a165853141 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-a165853141
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=1804307
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-c06599d298 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-c06599d298 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-c06599d298
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=1804307
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|RAWHIDE |ERRATA
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-a165853141 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1804307
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-c06599d298 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=1804307
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-a165853141 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