[Bug 1384130] Review Request: python3-sqlalchemy - Modular and flexible ORM library for python

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1384130



--- Comment #1 from Tim Orling <TicoTimo@xxxxxxxxx> ---
Koji EPEL7 build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16345936
Koji EL6 build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16345941

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

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


Issues:
=======
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
  => This is ok, as %{python3_pkgversion}-devel is used and this is EPEL only.
- Latest version is 1.1.3, provided version is 1.1.1
  => To be fair, upstream has bumped twice in 20 days.
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
  (~1MB) or number of files.
  Note: Documentation size is 17274880 bytes in 278 files.
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation


===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 255 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/parallels/1384130-python3-sqlalchemy/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/share/licenses
     => In EPEL there is no owner of /usr/share/licenses
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/licenses
     => In EPEL there is no owner of /usr/share/licenses
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
     Note: Macros in: python34-sqlalchemy (description)
[-]: 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.
[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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]: 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.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
    => latest is 1.1.3; to be fair, it has bumped twice in 20 days
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
     Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 17592320 bytes in /usr/share
     python34-sqlalchemy-1.1.1-1.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm:17592320
     See:
    
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Guidelines
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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: python34-sqlalchemy-1.1.1-1.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm
          python3-sqlalchemy-1.1.1-1.el7.centos.src.rpm
python34-sqlalchemy.x86_64: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value
/usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/sqlalchemy/dialects/firebird/__pycache__/kinterbasdb.cpython-34.pyc
expected 3260 (3.4), found 3310 (unknown)
python34-sqlalchemy.x86_64: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value
<--snip-->
/usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/sqlalchemy/dialects/postgresql/__pycache__/pg8000.cpython-34.pyo
expected 3260 (3.4), found 3310 (unknown)
=> These are a from a bug in rpmlint:
https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-bugs/2014-05/msg00374.html
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 379 errors, 0 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: python3-sqlalchemy-debuginfo-1.1.1-1.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
python34-sqlalchemy.x86_64: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value
/usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/sqlalchemy/dialects/firebird/__pycache__/kinterbasdb.cpython-34.pyc
expected 3260 (3.4), found 3310 (unknown)
<--snip-->
/usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/sqlalchemy/dialects/postgresql/__pycache__/pg8000.cpython-34.pyo
expected 3260 (3.4), found 3310 (unknown)
=> This is ok, as %{python3_pkgversion}-devel is used and this is EPEL only.
python3-sqlalchemy-debuginfo.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
=> this is to be expected for python extensions
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 379 errors, 1 warnings.



Requires
--------
python34-sqlalchemy (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    libpython3.4m.so.1.0()(64bit)
    python(abi)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
python34-sqlalchemy:
    python34-sqlalchemy
    python34-sqlalchemy(x86-64)



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
python34-sqlalchemy:
/usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/sqlalchemy/cprocessors.cpython-34m.so
python34-sqlalchemy:
/usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/sqlalchemy/cresultproxy.cpython-34m.so
python34-sqlalchemy:
/usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/sqlalchemy/cutils.cpython-34m.so
=> this is normal for python extensions: *.so -> site-packages

Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/S/SQLAlchemy/SQLAlchemy-1.1.1.tar.gz
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
2ef167c95042c43e48e51fe4e9745178be3dafb53efc6d091d2485fff9160230
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
2ef167c95042c43e48e51fe4e9745178be3dafb53efc6d091d2485fff9160230


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.3 (bcf15e3) last change: 2015-05-04
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1384130
Buildroot used: epel-7-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, R, PHP,
Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]