[Bug 2321919] Review Request: python-jstyleson - A python library to parse JSON with js-style comments

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2321919

Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+



--- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> ---
First of all the issue related to pytest (see comment #1 above) is a false
positive and can be safely ignored. Apart from this I don't see any issues so
here is my formal

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

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


Issues:
=======
- Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
  Note: python3-pytest7 is deprecated, you must not depend on it.
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/deprecating-packages/

^^^ false positive.

===== 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 (MIT).
[x]: Package owns all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format(autochagelog).
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package dies not contain desktop file (not a GUI application).
[-]: No development files.
[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.
[-]: The package is not a rename of another package.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package does not contain systemd file(s).
[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 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 2402 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[-]: No python eggs.
[-]: A package does not 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).
[?]: I did not test if the package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged (Git snapshot).
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources weren't verified with gpgverify in %prep (upstream does not
     publish signatures).
[?]: I did not test if the package compiles and builds into binary rpms
     on all supported architectures (noarch package anyway).
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: 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]: 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 all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-jstyleson-0.0.2^20200323.8c47cc9-1.fc42.noarch.rpm
          python-jstyleson-0.0.2^20200323.8c47cc9-1.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/tmpt86z_a4h')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

python-jstyleson.src: E: spelling-error ('json', '%description -l en_US json ->
son, j son, soon')
python3-jstyleson.noarch: E: spelling-error ('json', '%description -l en_US
json -> son, j son, soon')
======================================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2
errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 1.1 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: 1

python3-jstyleson.noarch: E: spelling-error ('json', '%description -l en_US
json -> son, j son, soon')
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 1
badness; has taken 0.2 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/linjackson78/jstyleson/archive/8c47cc9e665b3b1744cccfaa7a650de5f3c575dd/jstyleson-8c47cc9.tar.gz
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
e8add7980a7574b5114185ff3fdea9b3ad6aa766f6c8253f8e77f59641fc2612
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
e8add7980a7574b5114185ff3fdea9b3ad6aa766f6c8253f8e77f59641fc2612


Requires
--------
python3-jstyleson (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)



Provides
--------
python3-jstyleson:
    python-jstyleson
    python3-jstyleson
    python3.13-jstyleson
    python3.13dist(jstyleson)
    python3dist(jstyleson)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2321919
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic
Disabled plugins: Haskell, SugarActivity, R, fonts, Perl, PHP, C/C++, Java,
Ocaml
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

this package is

================
=== APPROVED ===
================


-- 
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=2321919

Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202321919%23c3

-- 
_______________________________________________
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