https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2050830
Bug ID: 2050830 Summary: Review Request: fprettify - Auto-formatter for modern Fortran source code Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: susi.lehtola@iki.fi QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/fprettify.spec SRPM URL: https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/fprettify-0.3.7-1.fc35.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jussilehtola
Description: fprettify is an auto-formatter written in Python to impose strict whitespace formatting for modern Fortran code.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2050830
Susi Lehtola susi.lehtola@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Alias| |fprettify
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2050830
Mark E. Fuller mark.e.fuller@gmx.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mark.e.fuller@gmx.de Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mark.e.fuller@gmx.de
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2050830
--- Comment #1 from Mark E. Fuller mark.e.fuller@gmx.de --- OK, on first attempt to build I had large numbers of tests fail with "... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory": Do these need "python3" explicitly in the shebang? (I thought python was symlinked to python3 as a matter of course; it is on my machine).
Failed tests: test_associate (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory FAIL test_comments (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory FAIL test_decl (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory FAIL test_directive (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory FAIL test_disable (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory FAIL test_do (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory FAIL test_ford (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory FAIL test_fypp (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory FAIL test_indent (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory FAIL test_io (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory FAIL test_line_length (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory FAIL test_mod (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory FAIL test_multi_alias (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory FAIL test_multiline_str (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory FAIL test_nested (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory FAIL test_new_intrinsics (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory FAIL test_omp (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory FAIL test_plusminus (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory FAIL test_relation_replacement (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory FAIL test_reset_indent (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory FAIL test_statement_label (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory FAIL test_swap_case (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory FAIL test_type_selector (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory FAIL test_use (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory FAIL test_whitespace (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory FAIL test_wrongkind (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory FAIL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2050830
Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2050830
--- Comment #2 from Susi Lehtola susi.lehtola@iki.fi --- I patched out the use of /usr/bin/env python. The tests do work on my machine.
https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/fprettify.spec https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/fprettify-0.3.7-2.fc35.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2050830
--- Comment #3 from Mark E. Fuller mark.e.fuller@gmx.de --- Everything looks great now:
FYI, srpm link is wrong, should be https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/fprettify.spec https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/fprettify-0.3.7-2.fc36.src.rpm
RPMlint didn't catch anything
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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. [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-fprettify [ ]: Package functions as described. [X]: 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. [X]: 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]: 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. [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).
Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/pseewald/fprettify/archive/refs/tags/v0.3.7/fprettify-0.3... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 052da19a9080a6641d3202e10572cf3d978e6bcc0e7db29c1eb8ba724e89adc7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 052da19a9080a6641d3202e10572cf3d978e6bcc0e7db29c1eb8ba724e89adc7
Requires -------- fprettify (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python3-fprettify
python3-fprettify (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.10dist(configargparse) python3dist(configargparse) python3dist(setuptools)
Provides -------- fprettify: fprettify
python3-fprettify: python-fprettify python3-fprettify python3.10-fprettify python3.10dist(fprettify) python3dist(fprettify)
Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -rn fprettify-0.3.7-2.fc36.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: C/C++, PHP, Haskell, R, fonts, Perl, Java, SugarActivity, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2050830
Mark E. Fuller mark.e.fuller@gmx.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Mark E. Fuller mark.e.fuller@gmx.de --- Package is approved
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2050830
--- Comment #5 from Susi Lehtola susi.lehtola@iki.fi --- Thanks for the review!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2050830
--- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fprettify
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2050830
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-efa2764128 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-efa2764128
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2050830
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-5c6a219be9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-5c6a219be9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2050830
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-5c6a219be9 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-5c6a219be9 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-5c6a219be9
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2050830
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-efa2764128 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-efa2764128 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-efa2764128
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2050830
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2022-06-05 01:09:32
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-5c6a219be9 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2050830
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-efa2764128 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org