https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1686307 Elliott Sales de Andrade <quantum.analyst@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(quantum.analyst@g | |mail.com) | --- Comment #27 from Elliott Sales de Andrade <quantum.analyst@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Adam Williamson from comment #22) > Looks like a couple more test blips in the scratch build :/ two in x86_64, > one in ppc64le. Not the same ones. They kinda look like timing issues to me, > if anything, they don't leap out as being Python 3.13-related or anything. > Might be a case where we should just throw builds until one sticks, or > disable more tests :/ > I fixed a couple, but the others seemed random. > no-binary is > because the python3-distributed package is arched. There is a comment in the > spec: > > # We have an arched package to detect arch-dependent issues in dependencies, > # but all of the installable RPMs are noarch and there is no compiled code. > > but that seems to not be accurate, it seems to have been copied from > python-dask.spec, but the python3 subpackage doesn't have `BuildArch: > noarch` as it does in python-dask.spec. (Though it's actually a lie for > python-dask now too, since the "+foo" subpackages are arched). Probably > needs fixing. This is now fixed. > "MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines" - well, it seems to > violate "All patches should have an upstream bug link or comment". The only > comment before the first three patches is "Fedora specific?" - that doesn't > explain what they do, why they're Fedora specific (i.e. not upstreamable), > and it's not even clear that comment applies to all three patches. > 0005-Loosen-up-some-dependencies.patch has no comment. The comment for > 0008-Avoid-using-sys.prefix-in-CLI-test.patch does not list an upstream > reference or clearly explain why it's downstream-only. Personally I would > also include short descriptions of each patch as well as PR links, but > that's more a personal preference. > I re-ordered these so all the Fedora ones are together. I consider the patch names to be descriptive enough, and since they were cherry-picked and `git format-patch`d into a series, they contain the information from the original commits, so I don't see the need to re-describe them in the spec file. > "MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual > license. See Licensing Guidelines: Valid License Short Names" - I don't > think this is fully met. First off, new spec files must use SPDX license > identifiers, and "BSD" isn't one, according to https://spdx.org/licenses/ - > you need to use a more specific identifier for exactly what flavor of BSD > license this is. Second, there seem to be files in the package under > licenses other than BSD: distributed/compatibility.py and > distributed/threadpoolexecutor.py contain code under the Python license, and > distributed/http/static/js/anime.min.js and > distributed/http/static/js/reconnecting-websocket.min.js are under the MIT > license. These licenses must also be listed, in SPDX style. Yes, this review is older than SPDX... It's now correct and includes the licence breakdown in a comment. > "SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it > doesn’t, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. See Packaging > Guidelines: Manpages" - see above. > I doubt upstream would write them, but I suppose I could ask. > I think those are all the outstanding issues I can see. Marking NEEDINFO for > those to be worked on. Spec URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-distributed/python-distributed.spec SRPM URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-distributed/python-distributed-2024.6.2-1.fc41.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1686307 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201686307%23c27 -- _______________________________________________ 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
