https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018238
Bug ID: 2018238 Summary: Review Request: python-read-roi - Read ROI files .zip or .roi generated with ImageJ. Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: adebola786@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://pagure.io/python-read-roi/raw/main/f/python-read-roi.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/python-read-roi/raw/main/f/python-read-roi-1.6.0-1.fc36.sr... Description: Read ROI files .zip or .roi generated with ImageJ.
Fedora Account System Username: hardeborlaa
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018238
--- Comment #1 from Adeleye Opeyemi adebola786@gmail.com --- I am a new packager and I need a sponsor.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018238
Hafsat hafsatajia@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |hafsatajia@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Hafsat hafsatajia@gmail.com ---
This is an unofficial review. I am looking for a Sponsor.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. Note: python3-nose is deprecated, you must not depend on it. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/deprecating-packages/
The rpmlint tests I carried out were successful.
===== 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", "BSD 3-Clause License". 54 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/hafsat/Documents/outreachy/neuroFedora/reviews/2018238-python- read-roi/licensecheck.txt [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [?]: 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 [?]: 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. [?]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: 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. [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]: 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. [?]: 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. [?]: 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %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.
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/hadim/read-roi/archive/0dea04fb83fe7096ae68753f0d75299a54... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4a42143b0d335b2ac8c186103f8b5b6c7611cfa994e8a72da01f9aeef84b2a1d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4a42143b0d335b2ac8c186103f8b5b6c7611cfa994e8a72da01f9aeef84b2a1d
Requires -------- python3-read-roi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi)
Provides -------- python3-read-roi: python-read-roi python3-read-roi python3.10-read-roi python3.10dist(read-roi) python3dist(read-roi)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2018238 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, PHP, fonts, C/C++, Ocaml, Haskell, Java, R, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018238
Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR), | |1276941 (fedora-neuro) CC| |sanjay.ankur@gmail.com
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=1276941 [Bug 1276941] Fedora NeuroImaging and NeuroScience tracking bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018238
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? | |needinfo?(code@musicinmybra | |in.net) Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |code@musicinmybrain.net Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |code@musicinmybrain.net
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018238
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(code@musicinmybra |needinfo?(adebola786@gmail. |in.net) |com)
--- Comment #3 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues: ======= - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. Note: python3-nose is deprecated, you must not depend on it. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/deprecating-packages/
If you already had a package that used nose, you would not be compelled to change it right away, but a new package can’t be approved with a nose dependency. Please see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DeprecateNose for details on the deprecation and typical workarounds.
The best thing to do is to devise a patch that removes the nose dependency, submit it upstream
(https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PatchUpstreamStatu...), and apply it downstream.
This is not very hard in the case of this package, since nose is used only for the nose.tools.nottest decorator, and that in only one spot. I sent a PR upstream (https://github.com/hadim/read-roi/pull/27).
You can add:
Patch0: %{url}/pull/27.patch
and change
%autosetup -n read-roi-%{commit}
to
%autosetup -n read-roi-%{commit} -p1
then fetch the patch with
spectool -g python-read-roi.spec
replace
BuildRequires: python3-pytest BuildRequires: python3-nose
with
BuildRequires: python3dist(nose2)
(I can’t get pytest to work here as a test runner), and, replace
%pytest
with
PYTHONPATH='%{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib}' nose2
- You’ve packaged from a particular commit in the upstream git repository. It’s okay to do this (preferably given a concrete reason, which it’s nice to mention in a spec file comment), but you’ll need to ensure the snapshot information field is in the Release
(https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snaps...). The easiest way to add the snapshot information is to use the “forge” macros
(https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_commit...).
However, the commit you selected is the same as the 1.6.0 release tag, which makes me think this was just copied from another spec file rather than intentional. You can still use the “forge” macros to package from a tag on GitHub, but it’s so easy to construct the URL that I recommend doing it directly. Instead of:
%global commit 0dea04fb83fe7096ae68753f0d75299a5426f372 %global shortcommit %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7}) Name: python-read-roi Version: 1.6.0 Release: 1%{?dist} Summary: Read ROI files .zip or .roi generated with imagej
License: BSD URL: https://github.com/hadim/read-roi/ Source0: https://github.com/hadim/read-roi/archive/%%7Bcommit%7D/%%7Bname%7D-%%7Bshor...
[…]
%autosetup -n read-roi-%{commit}
consider:
Name: python-read-roi Version: 1.6.0 Release: 1%{?dist} Summary: Read ROI files .zip or .roi generated with imagej
License: BSD URL: https://github.com/hadim/read-roi/ Source0: https://github.com/hadim/read-roi/archive/%%7Bversion%7D/%%7Bname%7D-%%7Bver...
[…]
%autosetup -n read-roi-%{version}
or even, if you like, shorten the Source0 as:
Source0: %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
- It is OK to call
%py3_check_import read_roi
but it is really only intended as a better-than-nothing “smoke tests” for packages where the upstream tests are not present or, for one reason or another, can’t be run in the RPM build environment. Since you’re running the upstream tests, feel free to drop it.
Note also that there is now a %pyproject_check_import that needs no arguments and automatically finds and imports all public API modules in the package, and I would suggest using this instead where a %*_check_import macro is needed.
- This changelog format is not correct:
*Thu Oct 28 2021 Adeleye Opeyemi <adebola786 AT gmail DOT com> - 1.6.0-1 for read-roi
You can use “rpmdev-bumpspec -c 'My message here' *.spec” to construct a correctly-formatted one.
In particular, the version can’t wrap onto a second line, and I don’t know what the “for read-roi” is for.
This should look something like:
* Thu Oct 28 2021 Adeleye Opeyemi <adebola786 AT gmail DOT com> - 1.6.0-1
- The package for python-glymur had most of the same issues noted above at first (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2016693). Is there a spec file template or tutorial that you were both following? Perhaps I can suggest a few improvements to it.
===== 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", "BSD 3-Clause License". 54 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2018238-python-read-roi/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: 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 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
(except as noted)
[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 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: [ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [ ]: 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.
(based on tests passing)
[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. [x]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/hadim/read-roi/archive/0dea04fb83fe7096ae68753f0d75299a54... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4a42143b0d335b2ac8c186103f8b5b6c7611cfa994e8a72da01f9aeef84b2a1d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4a42143b0d335b2ac8c186103f8b5b6c7611cfa994e8a72da01f9aeef84b2a1d
Requires -------- python3-read-roi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi)
Provides -------- python3-read-roi: python-read-roi python3-read-roi python3.10-read-roi python3.10dist(read-roi) python3dist(read-roi)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2018238 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Perl, fonts, PHP, R, Ocaml, Haskell, C/C++, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.1.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 2
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018238
Adeleye Opeyemi adebola786@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(adebola786@gmail. | |com) |
--- Comment #4 from Adeleye Opeyemi adebola786@gmail.com --- Thank you very much for the review @code@musicinmybrain.net. I will make all the changes as listed above. As regards python-glymur package having most of the same first issues, it was probably because we were both in the same tutorial. But the tutorial was not documented. Thank you very much :))
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018238
--- Comment #5 from Adeleye Opeyemi adebola786@gmail.com --- Thank you @code@musicinmybrain.net. I have made update has suggested. This is the updated spec and srpm url:
Spec URL: https://pagure.io/python-read-roi/raw/master/f/python-read-roi.spec
SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/python-read-roi/raw/master/f/python-read-roi-1.6.0-1.fc36....
Changes -Added Patch0 -Added BuildRequires -Updated Source0 -Updated changelog
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018238
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- Thanks! I have one remaining suggestion, but the package is approved with or without the suggested change.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== Issues =====
- It’s preferred in Fedora to reference Python dependencies by their canonical project names rather than by the names of the RPMs that provide them, e.g.
BuildRequires: python3-nose2
would be better written as
BuildRequires: python3dist(nose2)
or as
BuildRequires: %{py3_dist nose2}
See
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#Machine-re... about *providing* these machine-readable provides (which this package does correctly),
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_test_depe... for an example of depending on pytest with this style of dependency, and
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_manual_ge... for documentation for the %py3_dist macro.
I don’t know of any guideline that says you “SHOULD” express dependencies this way, so no change is required for approval.
===== 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", "BSD 3-Clause License". 54 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2018238-python-read-roi/20211110/2018238-python-read- roi/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 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]: 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.
(based on tests passing)
[x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/hadim/read-roi//archive/1.6.0/python-read-roi-1.6.0.tar.g... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1a25919a13611f07b6a55bf2a04e4821e19a0fe4e83be4a908aeeab18d39328b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1a25919a13611f07b6a55bf2a04e4821e19a0fe4e83be4a908aeeab18d39328b
Requires -------- python3-read-roi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi)
Provides -------- python3-read-roi: python-read-roi python3-read-roi python3.10-read-roi python3.10dist(read-roi) python3dist(read-roi)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2018238 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, Java, PHP, fonts, SugarActivity, C/C++, Ocaml, Haskell, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018238
--- Comment #7 from Adeleye Opeyemi adebola786@gmail.com --- Thank you @code@musicinmybrain.net. I see reasons with your suggestion after going through the attached documentations. Here is the updated spec and srpm url:
Spec URL: https://pagure.io/python-read-roi/raw/master/f/python-read-roi.spec
SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/python-read-roi/raw/master/f/python-read-roi-1.6.0-1.fc36....
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018238
--- Comment #8 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- Thanks. Please note that the package was already approved, even without the latest update, so you can go ahead and request a repository.
Note that you committed the `results_python-read-roi` directory by accident in https://pagure.io/python-read-roi/c/83e5f5025d7d04d306f40730f239fafe51dc2786; please make sure that isn’t included in the dist-git import once you request a repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018238
--- Comment #9 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com --- Hi Adeleye,
As per https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/How_to_Get_Sponsore..., could you please list the reviews you've done here so we can take a look at them?
Cheers, Ankur
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018238
--- Comment #10 from Adeleye Opeyemi adebola786@gmail.com --- Thanks Ben. The `results_python-read-roi` directory was committed accidentally and will make sure not to include it once I request for a repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018238
--- Comment #11 from Adeleye Opeyemi adebola786@gmail.com --- Hi Ankur,
Below are the list of reviews I have done so far:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2016693#c3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2017610#c2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2017716#c2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2016786#c4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018238
Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #12 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com --- Hi Adeleye,
Sorry for the delay, busy times at the job :)
I've had a look at your reviews and while there's still more for us to learn, I think you're quite ready to be a package maintainer and learn while you work with more packages.
So, I've now sponsored you to the package maintainers group. Congratulations! :)
Please log out and back in to https://src.fedoraproject.org, which will sync it's database to give you the right permissions.
Then, please continue from here to request a repository and import your package: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/New_Package_Process...
Please do also go to the "settings" of the new repository to give the `neuro-sig` admin access to the repository so that we can all maintain these packages together.
Cheers, Ankur
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018238
Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com 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=2018238
Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(adebola786@gmail. | |com)
--- Comment #13 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com --- Hi @adebola786@gmail.com
Could you proceed with importing this package please? It has been approved and you've also been sponsored to the neuro-sig now :)
Please ping us in the matrix/element channel if you're unsure about what to do now.
Cheers, Ankur
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018238
Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(adebola786@gmail. | |com) |
--- Comment #14 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com --- Resetting review approved flag so that the scm request can be made (doesn't work at the moment because the flag was set more than 60 days ago).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018238
Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review+ |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018238
Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018238
Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|code@musicinmybrain.net |sanjay.ankur@gmail.com
--- Comment #15 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com --- (also "taking" the ticket in case `fedpkg request-repo` checks to see that the assignee and flag setter are the same etc.)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018238
--- Comment #16 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-read-roi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018238
--- Comment #17 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com --- Please proceed with importing the package using these instructions (and please ping me if any steps are confusing etc.):
https://pagure.io/fedora-docs/package-maintainer-docs/issue/56
Also pinged you in the channel about this.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018238
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-4227851f4c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-4227851f4c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018238
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-4227851f4c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-4227851f4c
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-94e1653bc4 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-94e1653bc4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018238
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-94e1653bc4 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-94e1653bc4 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-94e1653bc4
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=2018238
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-4227851f4c has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-4227851f4c *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-4227851f4c
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=2018238
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2022-02-19 01:09:39
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-4227851f4c has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018238
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-94e1653bc4 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org