https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1683621
Bug ID: 1683621 Summary: Review Request: python-ogr - One API for multiple git forges Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ttomecek@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/packit-service/ogr/5afb9c35e5f1e9d5e7d2c7d... SRPM URL: https://ttomecek.fedorapeople.org/python-ogr-0.0.2-1.fc29.src.rpm Description: One Git library to Rule! Fedora Account System Username: ttomecek
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1683621
--- Comment #1 from Tomas Tomecek ttomecek@redhat.com --- Please don't take this bugzilla, it's reserved for my colleague. Waiting for him to get it assigned.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1683621
Frantisek Lachman lachmanfrantisek@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lachmanfrantisek@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1683621
Tomas Tomecek ttomecek@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |lachmanfrantisek@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1683621
--- Comment #2 from Frantisek Lachman lachmanfrantisek@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============
===== 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". 25 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/flachman/tmp/FedoraReview/review-python-ogr/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: 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]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-ogr-0.0.2-1.fc29.noarch.rpm python-ogr-0.0.2-1.fc29.src.rpm python-ogr.src: W: file-size-mismatch ogr-0.0.2.tar.gz = 17742, https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/o/ogr/ogr-0.0.2.tar.gz = 17723 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory python3-ogr.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/packit-service/ogr <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Requires -------- python3-ogr (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.7dist(gitpython) python3.7dist(libpagure) python3.7dist(pygithub) python3.7dist(python-gitlab)
Provides -------- python3-ogr: python3-ogr python3.7dist(ogr) python3dist(ogr)
Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/o/ogr/ogr-0.0.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3a6099b07a6ca752c6f354c5b28466818c45acb3853e4bf1014c64acea3c1796 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9461c76ece3cae87536c690321d5671a25abd9f29e04681ea848bb3152501f31 However, diff -r shows no differences
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1683621
--- Comment #3 from Frantisek Lachman lachmanfrantisek@gmail.com ---
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
Please, place the new version in the dist-git. The new version `0.0.3` was released yesterday.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1683621
Jiri Popelka jpopelka@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jpopelka@redhat.com Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1683621
Tomas Tomecek ttomecek@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1683621
Tomas Tomecek ttomecek@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|lachmanfrantisek@gmail.com |jpopelka@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1683621
--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-ogr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1683621
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-ogr-0.0.3-1.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-c93312a4fb
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1683621
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-ogr-0.0.3-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-c93312a4fb
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1683621
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2019-03-10 18:23:23
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-ogr-0.0.3-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org