https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1729056
Bug ID: 1729056 Summary: Review Request: blkinfo - blkinfo is a python library to enumerate and filter all block devices available in a system. Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: galtukho@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://github.com/grinrag/blkinfo/blob/master/rpm/blkinfo.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/galt/blkinfo/fedora-rawhide-... Description: blkinfo is a python library to enumerate and filter all block devices available in a system. (https://github.com/grinrag/blkinfo) Fedora Account System Username: galt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1729056
Antonio Trande anto.trande@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |anto.trande@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Antonio Trande anto.trande@gmail.com --- Hi!
I don't see the %changelog section.
Python2 version is really needed?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1729056
--- Comment #2 from Gennadii Altukhov galtukho@redhat.com --- Hi, thank you for the review.
Added %changelog section manually and also initialized to use 'tito' for future versions.
Yes, I need Python2 version as well, I'm building this package for EPEL7 (you can see it in COPR).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1729056
Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |decathorpe@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Please note: if you're building this package for fedora 30/31 as well, you cannot include a python 2 version without fesco exception:
"Software using python2 MUST NOT be newly packaged into Fedora 30 or newer without FESCo exception."
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_python_ve...
You can of course re-introduce a python2 package specifically for epel-7 branch, but *not* in fedora.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1729056
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com
--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Use bcond_without/bcond_with for you conditions.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1729056
--- Comment #5 from Gennadii Altukhov galtukho@redhat.com --- Hi,
I've just move python2 build to %else condition.
Now I build python2 for EPEL7 only and python3 for Fedora.
Updated spec file: https://github.com/grinrag/blkinfo/blob/master/rpm/blkinfo.spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1729056
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - SPEC file should be named python-blkinfo.spec
- Your summary is - too long (max 80 characters) - Should be capitalized - Should not repeat the name of the package - should not end with a dot
python3-blkinfo.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C blkinfo is a python library to list information about all available or the specified block devices. python3-blkinfo.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C blkinfo is a python library to list information about all available or the specified block devices. python3-blkinfo.noarch: E: summary-too-long C blkinfo is a python library to list information about all available or the specified block devices.
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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/blkinfo/review- python-blkinfo/licensecheck.txt [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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. [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]: 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]: 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 0 bytes in 0 files. [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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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-blkinfo-0.1.2-1.fc31.noarch.rpm python-blkinfo-0.1.2-1.fc31.src.rpm python3-blkinfo.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C blkinfo is a python library to list information about all available or the specified block devices. python3-blkinfo.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C blkinfo is a python library to list information about all available or the specified block devices. python3-blkinfo.noarch: E: summary-too-long C blkinfo is a python library to list information about all available or the specified block devices. python3-blkinfo.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lsblk python3-blkinfo.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sys -> says, sis, syn python3-blkinfo.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US proc -> crop, prov, pro python3-blkinfo.noarch: W: no-documentation python-blkinfo.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C blkinfo is a python library to list information about all available or the specified block devices. python-blkinfo.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C blkinfo is a python library to list information about all available or the specified block devices. python-blkinfo.src: E: summary-too-long C blkinfo is a python library to list information about all available or the specified block devices. python-blkinfo.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lsblk python-blkinfo.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sys -> says, sis, syn python-blkinfo.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US proc -> crop, prov, pro python-blkinfo.src: W: no-%install-section 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 12 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1729056
--- Comment #7 from Gennadii Altukhov galtukho@redhat.com --- Thank you for the detailed output. I fixed problems with the summary.
"python3-blkinfo.noarch: W: no-documentation" - means missing man-page? Is it necessary right now?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1729056
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- No, package is approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1729056
--- Comment #9 from Gennadii Altukhov galtukho@redhat.com --- Hi,
Now I can expect to see the rpm package spec here https://src.fedoraproject.org/projects/rpms/, right?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1729056
--- Comment #10 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- (In reply to Gennadii Altukhov from comment #9)
Hi,
Now I can expect to see the rpm package spec here https://src.fedoraproject.org/projects/rpms/, right?
No you need to request it.
You're here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers?rd=Pa... Follow the steps after that.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1729056
Mattia Verga mattia.verga@protonmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Blocks| |201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Assignee|zebob.m@gmail.com |nobody@fedoraproject.org Flags|fedora-review+ | Last Closed| |2021-07-04 15:21:36
--- Comment #11 from Mattia Verga mattia.verga@protonmail.com --- Review stalled and the submitter account is no more active, closing as DEADREVIEW
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org