https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138486
Bug ID: 2138486 Summary: Review Request: python-crossword - Python library for handling crossword puzzles Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dcavalca@fb.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-crossword/python-crossword.s... SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-crossword/python-crossword-0...
Description: Python library for handling crossword puzzles. This library provides a canonical data structure that can be used to represent crosswords in your application. It provides a Pythonic way to perform common operations on the grid, the words and the clues of the puzzle.
Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138486
Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |2138047
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138047 [Bug 2138047] Review Request: python-ipuz - Python library for reading and writing ipuz puzzle files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138486
Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2138487 Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138487 [Bug 2138487] Review Request: python-xdfile - Python parser for .xd crossword format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138486 Bug 2138486 depends on bug 2138047, which changed state.
Bug 2138047 Summary: Review Request: python-ipuz - Python library for reading and writing ipuz puzzle files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138047
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138486
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jkadlcik@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Hello Davide, thank you for the package.
# The GitHub repo doesn't have tags, this is the commit corresponding to the # 0.1.2 release in PyPI %global commit 57078ad5ab5e1ef1bfaa909ca392e1c76e99be1f
Looks good to me, I won't block the review because of this. But can you please create an upstream issue asking them to publish tags on GitHub?
Also, I am not quite sure how to validate that the commit corresponds to the PyPI package. Can you please explain, how you do it? I would like to write some code to `fedora-review` or create a separate script for this.
No matching package to install: 'python3dist(ipuz)'
The python-ipuz package was reviewed in RHBZ 2138047 and is now in testing repositories. But I think we should wait until it gets to stable and we can successfully build this package.
Is that okay with you?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138486
--- Comment #2 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- (In reply to Jakub Kadlčík from comment #1)
Looks good to me, I won't block the review because of this. But can you please create an upstream issue asking them to publish tags on GitHub?
https://github.com/svisser/crossword/issues/4
Also, I am not quite sure how to validate that the commit corresponds to the PyPI package. Can you please explain, how you do it? I would like to write some code to `fedora-review` or create a separate script for this.
The heuristics I use are roughly: - check when the pypi package was published and find a commit on/around that date - ideally look for a commit that updates or sets a version that matches with the pypi one - compare the contents of the tree at the commit with the contents of the pypi source (assuming there is a source, as some packages -- not this one thankfully -- only publish wheels)
Put together, these usually surface enough clues to find a good candidate, but I'm not sure how easy it would be to automate this process.
No matching package to install: 'python3dist(ipuz)'
The python-ipuz package was reviewed in RHBZ 2138047 and is now in testing repositories. But I think we should wait until it gets to stable and we can successfully build this package.
Is that okay with you?
Yup, that's totally fine. Thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138486
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 26 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jkadlcik/2138486-python-crossword/licensecheck.txt [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 2 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. [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]: 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: [x]: 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. [?]: 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. [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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/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 checks: 31, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/svisser/crossword/archive/57078ad5ab5e1ef1bfaa909ca392e1c... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 54ade0165a8aebc35ff63d6a7d7f75b2d71e05914cff11e5be0dfd321dc74180 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 54ade0165a8aebc35ff63d6a7d7f75b2d71e05914cff11e5be0dfd321dc74180
Requires -------- python3-crossword (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi)
Provides -------- python3-crossword: python-crossword python3-crossword python3.11-crossword python3.11dist(crossword) python3dist(crossword)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2138486 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, Haskell, Java, Ocaml, SugarActivity, fonts, R, C/C++, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138486
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jkadlcik@redhat.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138486
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138486
--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-crossword
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138486
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-86d462a55a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-86d462a55a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138486
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2022-11-17 17:03:09
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-86d462a55a has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138486
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-8da6dd9221 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-8da6dd9221
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138486
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-5c64dfad99 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-5c64dfad99
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138486
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-5c64dfad99 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 --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-5c64dfad99 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-5c64dfad99
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=2138486
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-8da6dd9221 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-8da6dd9221 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-8da6dd9221
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=2138486
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-8da6dd9221 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138486
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-5c64dfad99 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org