[Bug 1790241] Review Request: pipx - Utility for easily installing
venvs for python3 applications
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1790241
Tobias <t-fedora(a)girst.at> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #19 from Tobias <t-fedora(a)girst.at> ---
Package approved.
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: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 32 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/t/1790241-pipx/licensecheck.txt
[-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.8/site-
packages/pipx(locale,, Failed, to, set, defaulting, C),
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pipx-0.15.1.3-py3.8.egg-info(locale,,
Failed, to, set, defaulting, C), /usr/lib/python3.8/site-
packages/pipx/__pycache__(locale,, Failed, to, set, defaulting, C),
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pipx/commands(locale,, Failed, to,
set, defaulting, C), /usr/lib/python3.8/site-
packages/pipx/commands/__pycache__(locale,, Failed, to, set,
defaulting, C), /usr/share/doc/pipx(locale,, Failed, to, set,
defaulting, C), /usr/share/licenses/pipx(locale,, Failed, to, set,
defaulting, C)
[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 20480 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 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:
[-]: 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).
[x]: 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.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %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).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: pipx-0.15.1.3-1.fc32.noarch.rpm
pipx-0.15.1.3-1.fc32.src.rpm
pipx.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualenvs -> virtual
pipx.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pipx
pipx.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualenvs -> virtual
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
perl: warning: Setting locale failed.
perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings:
LANGUAGE = (unset),
LC_ALL = (unset),
LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8",
LANG = "en_US.utf8"
are supported and installed on your system.
perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C").
perl: warning: Setting locale failed.
perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings:
LANGUAGE = (unset),
LC_ALL = (unset),
LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8",
LANG = "en_US.utf8"
are supported and installed on your system.
perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C").
pipx.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualenvs -> virtual
pipx.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pipx <urlopen
error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
pipx.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pipx
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/pipx/pipx-0.15.1.3.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
01aa3a9549ea4ce8428ccb1b770d5fd428159f17635cad208effc17b42ccb72e
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
01aa3a9549ea4ce8428ccb1b770d5fd428159f17635cad208effc17b42ccb72e
Requires
--------
pipx (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
(python3.8dist(argcomplete) < 2 with python3.8dist(argcomplete) >= 1.9.4)
/usr/bin/python3
python(abi)
python3.8dist(setuptools)
python3.8dist(userpath)
Provides
--------
pipx:
pipx
python-pipx
python3.8dist(pipx)
python3dist(pipx)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.4 (54fa030) last change: 2019-12-07
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1790241
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, fonts, Perl, C/C++, PHP, R, Haskell, SugarActivity,
Java
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
4 years, 4 months
[Bug 1795283] Package review request - python-odml: File-format to
store metadata in an organised way
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795283
--- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur(a)gmail.com> ---
Looks pretty good---a few tweaks and we're ready!
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
- nothing provides python3.8dist(pathlib) needed by
python-odml-1.4.4-1.fc32.noarch
Pathlib is now part of the standard library, so it isn't required as a package
any more. It was retired in Fedora already:
https://docs.python.org/3/library/pathlib.html?highlight=pathlib#module-p...
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0428/
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pathlib/blob/master/f/dead.package
Please remove "pathlib" from setup.py using `sed` so that the automatic
generators don't pick it up. That should fix this.
- Please generate the docs if that's not too much trouble.
- Shouldn't the file section be python3-%{pypi_name}?
- Please check the SourceURL, currently returns a 404.
===== 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 4-clause "Original" or "Old"
License", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)", "*No copyright* Creative
Commons Attribution-ShareAlike Public License (v4.0)". 114 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/asinha/dump/fedora-review/1795283-python-odml/licensecheck.txt
^
The included tutorial is CC-BY-SA from the looks of it. Please include this in
the license field.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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.
[?]: 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.
^
May be needed if you generate docs.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[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 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:
[!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
Note: Could not download Source0:
https://github.com/G-Node/odml/archive/v1.4.4/odml-1.4.4.tar.gz
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/SourceURL/
^
Please check this---the SOURCEURL does return a 404.
[-]: 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).
^
Look OK but pathlib needs to be removed.
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[?]: %check is present and all tests pass.
^
Please document why the test has been deselected, and please report it upstream
if not yet done.
[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]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
^
Will have to be done after the pathlib fix when it can be installed.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Installation errors
-------------------
INFO: mock.py version 1.4.21 starting (python version = 3.7.6)...
Start: init plugins
INFO: selinux enabled
Finish: init plugins
INFO: Signal handler active
Start: run
Start: chroot init
INFO: calling preinit hooks
INFO: enabled root cache
INFO: enabled dnf cache
Start: cleaning dnf metadata
Finish: cleaning dnf metadata
INFO: enabled HW Info plugin
Mock Version: 1.4.21
INFO: Mock Version: 1.4.21
Finish: chroot init
INFO: installing package(s):
/home/asinha/dump/fedora-review/1795283-python-odml/results/python-odml-1.4.4-1.fc32.noarch.rpm
ERROR: Command failed:
# /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/
--releasever 32 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local
--disableplugin=spacewalk install
/home/asinha/dump/fedora-review/1795283-python-odml/results/python-odml-1.4.4-1.fc32.noarch.rpm
--setopt=tsflags=nocontexts
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python-odml-1.4.4-1.fc32.noarch.rpm
python-odml-1.4.4-1.fc32.src.rpm
python-odml.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) organised -> organized,
organist
^
Please tweak this, specs use American English.
python-odml.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reproducibility ->
reprehensibility
^
Please ignore.
python-odml.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary odmlconversion
python-odml.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary odmlconvert
python-odml.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary odmltordf
python-odml.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary odmlview
python-odml.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) organised -> organized,
organist
python-odml.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reproducibility ->
reprehensibility
python-odml.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
https://github.com/G-Node/odml/archive/v1.4.4/odml-1.4.4.tar.gz HTTP Error 404:
Not Found
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.
Requires
--------
python-odml (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/python3
python(abi)
python3.8dist(docopt)
python3.8dist(lxml)
python3.8dist(pathlib)
python3.8dist(pyyaml)
python3.8dist(rdflib)
python3.8dist(setuptools)
Provides
--------
python-odml:
python-odml
python3.8dist(odml)
python3dist(odml)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.4 (54fa030) last change: 2019-12-07
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1795283
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Perl, fonts, R, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, PHP, Java,
C/C++
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
4 years, 4 months