https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1723570
Bug ID: 1723570 Summary: Review Request: python-filecache - Save return values to files Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dylan@theone.ninja QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dstathis/insights-core/fedor... SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dstathis/insights-core/fedor... Description: This is a python library that automatically writes the return values of functions to a file. It is a dependency of insights-core
ps: This is my first batch of Review requests and I am seeking a packaging sponsor. Fedora Account System Username: dstathis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1723570
--- Comment #1 from Dylan Stephano-Shachter dylan@theone.ninja --- The upstream homepage is here https://github.com/ubershmekel/filecache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1723570
Dylan Stephano-Shachter dylan@theone.ninja changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1723575
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1723575 [Bug 1723575] Review Request: python-insights-core - data collection and processing framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1723570
--- Comment #2 from Dylan Stephano-Shachter dylan@theone.ninja --- New spec: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dstathis/insights-core/fedor...
New srpm: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dstathis/insights-core/fedor...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1723570
Dylan Stephano-Shachter dylan@theone.ninja changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1723570
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Source0: https://pypi.org/packages/source/f/filecache/%%7Bname%7D-%%7Bversion%7D.zip
→
Source0: %{pypi_source}
- No need for this, just set the version in the Version: field
%global version 0.77
- No %global name filecache, name should be python-filecache
%global srcname filecache
Name: python-%{srcname}
And replace your %{name} by %{srcname} throughout the SPEC
- Put an effort in your Summaries and description. Describe what does it do and so on.
Summary: Cache the return value of functions
%description "filecache" is a decorator that saves the return values of a decorated function to a file. The cache lives even after the interpreter restarts. For example a function which downloads stuff and does heavy duty parsing can benefit from this package. All you need to do is specify how long the return values should be cached (use seconds, like time.sleep).
- Python 2 is deprecated, please remove the Py 2 subpackage for Fedora. Add it behind a flag with bcond_with/bcond_without if you plan to make it for EPEL too.
- You are missing the Pythonn provide macro:
%package -n python%{python3_pkgversion}-%{srcname} Summary: Cache the return value of functions BuildRequires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-devel BuildRequires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-setuptools %{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{srcname}}
See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_the_pytho...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1723570
--- Comment #4 from Dylan Stephano-Shachter dylan@theone.ninja --- Here is the spec file and srpm updated with feedback
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dstathis/insights-core/fedor... https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dstathis/insights-core/fedor...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1723570
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 #5 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - Don't mix tabs and spaces, use one or the other:
Source0: %{pypi_source %{srcname} %{version} zip} #Source0: https://pypi.org/packages/source/f/filecache/%%%7Bsrcname%7D-%%%7Bversion%7D...
- Escape the macros in comments by doubling the %
#Source0: https://pypi.org/packages/source/f/filecache/%%%7Bsrcname%7D-%%%7Bversion%7D...
Package approved. Please fix the aforementioned issue before import.
You still need to find a sponsor. Please read https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
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", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-filecache/review-python- filecache/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]: 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]: 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-filecache-0.77-1.fc31.noarch.rpm python-filecache-0.77-1.fc31.src.rpm python3-filecache.noarch: W: no-documentation python-filecache.src:15: W: macro-in-comment %{srcname} python-filecache.src:15: W: macro-in-comment %{version} python-filecache.src:14: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 14, tab: line 7) python-filecache.src: E: specfile-error warning: Macro expanded in comment on line 15: %{srcname}-%{version}.zip python-filecache.src: E: specfile-error python-filecache.src: E: specfile-error warning: Macro expanded in comment on line 15: %{srcname}-%{version}.zip 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 4 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1723570
--- Comment #6 from Dylan Stephano-Shachter dylan@theone.ninja --- Okay I updated the spec to fix the rpmlint errors and warnings
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dstathis/insights-core/fedor... https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dstathis/insights-core/fedor...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1723570
Mattia Verga mattia.verga@protonmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEW Assignee|zebob.m@gmail.com |nobody@fedoraproject.org Flags|fedora-review+ |needinfo?(dylan@theone.ninj | |a)
--- Comment #7 from Mattia Verga mattia.verga@protonmail.com --- Review stalled
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org