[Bug 2307912] Review Request: pyliblo3 - Python bindings for the liblo Open Sound Control (OSC) library

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2307912

Cristian Le <fedora@xxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|                            |fedora-review+
             Status|NEW                         |POST



--- Comment #18 from Cristian Le <fedora@xxxxxxxxx> ---
LGTM, don't forget to fix the spec file when importing.

Package Approved.

Just a few minor points:
- `doc` is not built and it points to the old `pyliblo` documentation and
sites. Don't know what the intention of upstream is to update those
documentations or not. Since this is primarily used as a library for other
dependencies, you could probably ignore the doc packaging. Otherwise add the
dependency on the main package so that the license file is included.
- add the `Obsoletes` for the `piliblo` as Adam suggested

---


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

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



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

C/C++:
[-]: 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.

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: "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "Unknown or
     generated", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License", "GNU
     Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "GNU General Public
     License v2.0 or later". 29 files have unknown license. Detailed output
     of licensecheck in
     /home/lecris/FedoraRPMS/2307912-pyliblo3/licensecheck.txt
[?]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-
     packages, /usr/lib64/python3.13
[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.
[-]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 6275 bytes in 2 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.
[-]: 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:
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
     Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n)
     %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[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.

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

Generic:
[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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: pyliblo3-0.16.2-0.5.git91d1781.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          pyliblo3-doc-0.16.2-0.5.git91d1781.fc42.noarch.rpm
          pyliblo3-debuginfo-0.16.2-0.5.git91d1781.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          pyliblo3-debugsource-0.16.2-0.5.git91d1781.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          pyliblo3-0.16.2-0.5.git91d1781.fc42.src.rpm
================================================================= rpmlint
session starts ================================================================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp6r6y9ctz')]
checks: 32, packages: 5

pyliblo3.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dump_osc.py
pyliblo3.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary send_osc.py
=========================== 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2
warnings, 20 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.2 s ===========================




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: pyliblo3-debuginfo-0.16.2-0.5.git91d1781.fc42.x86_64.rpm
================================================================= rpmlint
session starts ================================================================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpuwd9p0_z')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

============================ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0
warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s ===========================





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 4

pyliblo3.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dump_osc.py
pyliblo3.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary send_osc.py
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 17 filtered, 0
badness; has taken 0.7 s 



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
pyliblo3:
/usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyliblo3/_liblo.cpython-313-x86_64-linux-gnu.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/gesellkammer/pyliblo3/archive/91d17815b911ccc2c1d1408412e7885c32f2d460/pyliblo3-91d1781.tar.gz
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
a17ef90dfc01cc298dadecbe7a2cedc4cadfaf78bc704260eb818099cb63366b
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
a17ef90dfc01cc298dadecbe7a2cedc4cadfaf78bc704260eb818099cb63366b


Requires
--------
pyliblo3 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    liblo.so.7()(64bit)
    python(abi)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

pyliblo3-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

pyliblo3-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

pyliblo3-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
pyliblo3:
    pyliblo3
    pyliblo3(x86-64)
    python3.13dist(pyliblo3)
    python3dist(pyliblo3)

pyliblo3-doc:
    pyliblo3-doc

pyliblo3-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    pyliblo3-debuginfo
    pyliblo3-debuginfo(x86-64)

pyliblo3-debugsource:
    pyliblo3-debugsource
    pyliblo3-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2307912
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: R, Perl, PHP, fonts, Java, Ocaml, C/C++, SugarActivity,
Haskell
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH


-- 
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=2307912

Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202307912%23c18

-- 
_______________________________________________
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