[Bug 1884077] New: Review Request: python-python-multipart -A streaming multipart parser for Python

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884077

Bug ID: 1884077
           Summary: Review Request: python-python-multipart -A streaming
                    multipart parser for Python
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
          Hardware: All
                OS: Linux
            Status: NEW
         Component: Package Review
          Severity: medium
          Priority: medium
          Assignee: [e-mail]
          Reporter: [e-mail]
        QA Contact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail]
  Target Milestone: ---
    Classification: Fedora

Spec URL: https://itamarjp.fedorapeople.org/review/python-python-multipart.spec
SRPM URL:
https://itamarjp.fedorapeople.org/review/python-python-multipart-0.0.5-1.fc3...

Description: A streaming multipart parser for Python

Fedora Account System Username:itamarjp

[Bug 1884077] Review Request: python-python-multipart -A streaming multipart parser for Python

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884077

Itamar Reis Peixoto  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Blocks|                            |1884063

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884063
[Bug 1884063] Review Request: python-fastapi - FastAPI framework, high
performance, easy to learn, fast to code, ready for production

[Bug 1884077] Review Request: python-python-multipart -A streaming multipart parser for Python

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884077

Andy Mender  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
           Assignee|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]
           Doc Type|---                         |If docs needed, set a value
              Flags|                            |fedora-review?

[Bug 1884077] Review Request: python-python-multipart -A streaming multipart parser for Python

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884077

--- Comment #1 from Andy Mender  ---
Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52704105
> %global pypi_name python-multipart
> %global srcname python-multipart
>
> Name:           python-%{srcname}

Any chance to call the package simply "python-multipart" instead of
"python-python-multipart"?
> License:        Apache

The License tag for the Apache license in this case is "ASL 2.0" since that's
what the upstream uses:
https://github.com/andrew-d/python-multipart/blob/master/LICENSE.txt
> BuildRequires:  python3dist(setuptools)
> BuildRequires:  python3dist(six) >= 1.4

The version requirement on python3-six >= 1.4 is not needed, since Fedora 32
already ships python3-six version 1.14.
> %check
> #disable tests for now
> ##%{__python3} setup.py test

Could you re-enable the tests or give a specific reason why the tests are
disabled?

Full review below:

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

Issues:
=======
- Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
  Note: python3-pytest4 is deprecated, you must not depend on it.
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/deprecating-packages/
  Review: please ignore this warning.

===== 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Apache License 2.0", "Unknown or generated". 61 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-python-multipart/python-python-
     multipart/licensecheck.txt
     Review: mentioned in an earlier comment.
[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 10240 bytes in 1 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 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.
     Review: Tested in Koji.
[-]: 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.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
     Review: mentioned in earlier comment.
[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.

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-python-multipart-0.0.5-1.fc34.noarch.rpm
          python-python-multipart-0.0.5-1.fc34.src.rpm
python3-python-multipart.noarch: E: no-description-tag
python3-python-multipart.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache
python-python-multipart.src: E: no-description-tag
python-python-multipart.src: W: invalid-license Apache
python-python-multipart.src:47: W: macro-in-comment %{__python3}
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
(none): E: no installed packages by name python3-python-multipart

Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/python-multipart/python-mul...
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
f7bb5f611fc600d15fa47b3974c8aa16e93724513b49b5f95c81e6624c83fa43
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
f7bb5f611fc600d15fa47b3974c8aa16e93724513b49b5f95c81e6624c83fa43

Requires
--------
python3-python-multipart (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3.9dist(six)
    python3dist(six)

Provides
--------
python3-python-multipart:
    python-python-multipart
    python3-python-multipart
    python3.9-python-multipart
    python3.9dist(python-multipart)
    python3dist(python-multipart)

[Bug 1884077] Review Request: python-python-multipart -A streaming multipart parser for Python

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884077

--- Comment #2 from Itamar Reis Peixoto  ---
> Any chance to call the package simply "python-multipart" instead of
> "python-python-multipart"?

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_python_so...
> The License tag for the Apache license in this case is "ASL 2.0" since

OK
> The version requirement on python3-six >= 1.4 is not needed, since Fedora 32

OK
> Could you re-enable the tests or give a specific reason why the tests are
> disabled?

tests enabled.

[Bug 1884077] Review Request: python-multipart -A streaming multipart parser for Python

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884077

Itamar Reis Peixoto  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|Review Request:             |Review Request:
                   |python-python-multipart -A  |python-multipart -A
                   |streaming multipart parser  |streaming multipart parser
                   |for Python                  |for Python

[Bug 1884077] Review Request: python-multipart - A streaming multipart parser for Python

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884077

Itamar Reis Peixoto  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|Review Request:             |Review Request:
                   |python-multipart -A         |python-multipart - A
                   |streaming multipart parser  |streaming multipart parser
                   |for Python                  |for Python

[Bug 1884077] Review Request: python-multipart - A streaming multipart parser for Python

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884077

--- Comment #3 from Itamar Reis Peixoto  ---
Spec URL: https://itamarjp.fedorapeople.org/review/python-python-multipart.spec
SRPM URL:
https://itamarjp.fedorapeople.org/review/python-python-multipart-0.0.5-1.fc3...

[Bug 1884077] Review Request: python-multipart - A streaming multipart parser for Python

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884077

Andy Mender  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |POST
              Flags|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #4 from Andy Mender  ---
Tested in Koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52738529

Looks good. Package approved!

[Bug 1884077] Review Request: python-multipart - A streaming multipart parser for Python

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884077

--- Comment #5 from Itamar Reis Peixoto  ---
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/29349

[Bug 1884077] Review Request: python-multipart - A streaming multipart parser for Python

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884077

Andy Mender  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|                            |needinfo?(itamar@ispbrasil.
                   |                            |com.br)

--- Comment #6 from Andy Mender  ---
I saw the new-repo request was rejected, because the package already exists.
You didn't mention before that it's an unretirement / unorphan request, but
assuming that's the case, you need to file a ticket via this form instead:
https://pagure.io/releng/new_issue?template=package_unorphan&title=Unorp...

[Bug 1884077] Review Request: python-multipart - A streaming multipart parser for Python

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884077

Itamar Reis Peixoto  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|POST                        |CLOSED
         Resolution|---                         |WONTFIX
              Flags|needinfo?(itamar@ispbrasil. |
                   |com.br)                     |
        Last Closed|                            |2021-03-02 14:13:18