[Bug 2111607] Review Request: fts-rest-client - FTS Python3 clients

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2111607

Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    |mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxx.s
                   |                            |e
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
           Doc Type|---                         |If docs needed, set a value
              Flags|                            |fedora-review?
                 CC|                            |mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxx.s
                   |                            |e



--- Comment #1 from Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> ---
Package Review
==============

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


Issues:
=======

Quoting:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_buildrequire_python3_devel

"Every package that uses Python (at runtime and/or build time) and/or
installs Python modules MUST explicitly include BuildRequires:
python3-devel in its .spec file, even if Python is not actually
invoked during build time."

Replace
BuildRequires:  python3
With
BuildRequires:  python3-devel

Quoting:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_dependencies

"Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime)
with the unversioned prefix python- if the corresponding python3-
dependency can be used instead."

Note: Unversionned Python dependency found.

Remove:
BuildRequires:  python-rpm-macros

With the earlier change (build requiring python3-devel instead of
python3) the macro package is installed as a dependency:

$ rpm -q --requires python3-devel | grep macros
(pyproject-rpm-macros if rpm-build)
(python-rpm-macros >= 3.10-9 if rpm-build)
(python3-rpm-macros >= 3.10-9 if rpm-build)

Quoting:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_dependencies

"Packages SHOULD NOT have explicit dependencies (either build-time or
runtime) with a minor-version prefix such as python3.8- or
python3.8dist(. Such dependencies SHOULD instead be automatically
generated or a macro should be used to get the version."

Replace:
Requires:       python36-m2crypto
Requires:       python36-requests
With:
Requires:       python%{python3_pkgversion}-m2crypto
Requires:       python%{python3_pkgversion}-requests

===== 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: "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache
     License", "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0". 12 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/ellert/Packaging/review/review-fts-rest-client/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /etc/fts3
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/fts3

     Add %dir %{_sysconfdir}/fts3 to %files

[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
[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.

     rpmlint compains that the Obsolete is unversioned.
     Consider making it versioned

[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.

     See comment above about hardcoded python versions

[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]: 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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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]: 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.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments

     The way the source is described as being the result of a git
     checkout described in a comment does follow the guidelines.

[-]: 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.

     In recent python versions the setuptools module is not installed
     by default, and must be explicitly build required if used during
     the build. This does not harm older releases, so does not have to
     be conditionalized.

Add:
BuildRequires:  python3-setuptools

[-]: %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]: 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
-------

$ rpmlint ./fts-rest-client-3.12.0-1.fc38.src.rpm 
warning: line 19: It's not recommended to have unversioned Obsoletes:
Obsoletes:      fts-rest-cli
warning: line 19: It's not recommended to have unversioned Obsoletes:
Obsoletes:      fts-rest-cli
============================ 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

fts-rest-client.spec:19: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes fts-rest-cli
fts-rest-client.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: fts-rest-client-3.12.0.tar.gz
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken
0.7 s 


$ rpmlint ./fts-rest-client-3.12.0-1.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

fts-rest-client.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided fts-rest-cli
fts-rest-client.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fts-rest-ban
fts-rest-client.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fts-rest-delegate
fts-rest-client.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fts-rest-delete-submit
fts-rest-client.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fts-rest-server-status
fts-rest-client.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fts-rest-transfer-cancel
fts-rest-client.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fts-rest-transfer-list
fts-rest-client.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fts-rest-transfer-status
fts-rest-client.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fts-rest-transfer-submit
fts-rest-client.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fts-rest-whoami
fts-rest-client.noarch: W: no-documentation
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings, 0 badness; has
taken 0.2 s 


Requires
--------
fts-rest-client (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    config(fts-rest-client)
    python3
    python3-m2crypto
    python3-requests



Provides
--------
fts-rest-client:
    config(fts-rest-client)
    fts-rest-client



Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -L m2 -n fts-rest-client
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Java, PHP, SugarActivity, Perl, fonts, Haskell, C/C++, R,
Ocaml
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Built with local dependencies:
    /home/ellert/Packaging/review/m2/python3-m2crypto-0.38.0-7.fc38.x86_64.rpm

The python3-m2crypto was just recently rebuilt in rawhide with python
3.11. This version was not yet available in the package repositories.
The version in the repository was built agains python 3.10 and not
installable. In order to be able to perform the review I downloaded
the latest version from koji and used it as a local dependency.

The review was made with a minimal set of changes to the specfile to
make the package build and install on rawhide:

diff orig/fts-rest-client.spec fts-rest-client.spec 
12a13
> BuildRequires:  python3-setuptools
16,17c17,18
< Requires:       python36-m2crypto
< Requires:       python36-requests
---
> Requires:       python%{python3_pkgversion}-m2crypto
> Requires:       python%{python3_pkgversion}-requests


-- 
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2111607
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux