https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920242
Bug ID: 1920242 Summary: Review Request: python-gevent-eventemitter - EventEmitter using gevent Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ego.cordatus@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/python-gevent-eventemitter.spec SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/python-gevent-eventemitter-2.1-2.fc33.src.rpm
Description: This module implements EventEmitter with gevent.
Fedora Account System Username: atim
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920242
--- Comment #1 from Artem ego.cordatus@gmail.com --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=60490576
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920242
Artem ego.cordatus@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1920251
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920251 [Bug 1920251] Review Request: python-steam - Python package for interacting with Steam
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920242
Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |vitaly@easycoding.org Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |vitaly@easycoding.org Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org --- I will review this package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920242
--- Comment #3 from Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org --- 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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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: 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: [x]: 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. [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: [x]: 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]: 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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-gevent-eventemitter-2.1-2.fc34.noarch.rpm python-gevent-eventemitter-2.1-2.fc34.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/rossengeorgiev/gevent-eventemitter/archive/v2.1/gevent-ev... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ec44e3a69c3eab31462babc089d6d650be49e5186258f6284e43b9c7398926b1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ec44e3a69c3eab31462babc089d6d650be49e5186258f6284e43b9c7398926b1
Requires -------- python3-gevent-eventemitter (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.9dist(gevent)
Provides -------- python3-gevent-eventemitter: python-gevent-eventemitter python3-gevent-eventemitter python3.9-gevent-eventemitter python3.9dist(gevent-eventemitter) python3dist(gevent-eventemitter)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1920242 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, C/C++, PHP, R, Perl, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920242
Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org ---
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
The external license file should be removed until the upstream will merge your PR.
All other LGTM. Package approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920242
--- Comment #5 from Mohan Boddu mboddu@bhujji.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-gevent-eventemitter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920242
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-e0948e3f66 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-e0948e3f66
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920242
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-de114edfd9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-de114edfd9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920242
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-e0948e3f66 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-e0948e3f66 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-e0948e3f66
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=1920242
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-de114edfd9 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-de114edfd9 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-de114edfd9
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=1920242
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2021-02-05 01:32:08
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-de114edfd9 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=1920242
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-e0948e3f66 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org