https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1967775
Bug ID: 1967775 Summary: Review Request: python-jsondiff - Diff JSON and JSON-like structures in Python Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mhayden@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mhayden/azure-cli/fedora-... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mhayden/azure-cli/fedora-... Description: Diff JSON and JSON-like structures in Python Fedora Account System Username: mhayden fedora-review: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mhayden/azure-cli/fedora-raw...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1967775
Major Hayden mhayden@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1953789
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953789 [Bug 1953789] Update package to use versions subpackages?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1967775
Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com --- - This seems wrong:
Obsoletes: python3-azure-sdk < 5.0.1
- You must install the LICENSE file with %license in %files and you should install the README.rst file with %doc:
%files -n python%{python3_pkgversion}-%{srcname} %license LICENSE %doc README.rst %{python3_sitelib}/jsondiff %{python3_sitelib}/jsondiff-*.egg-info %{_bindir}/jdiff %{_bindir}/jsondiff
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. [!]: 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: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Expat License". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-jsondiff/review- python-jsondiff/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. [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. [-]: 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. [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-jsondiff-1.3.0-1.fc35.noarch.rpm python-jsondiff-1.3.0-1.fc35.src.rpm python3-jsondiff.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-jsondiff.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jdiff python3-jsondiff.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jsondiff 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1967775
Major Hayden mhayden@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(zebob.m@gmail.com | |)
--- Comment #2 from Major Hayden mhayden@redhat.com --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #1)
- This seems wrong:
Obsoletes: python3-azure-sdk < 5.0.1
Oof, that was a copy-paste error from the template spec I was using. Thank you.
- You must install the LICENSE file with %license in %files and you should
install the README.rst file with %doc:
%files -n python%{python3_pkgversion}-%{srcname} %license LICENSE %doc README.rst %{python3_sitelib}/jsondiff %{python3_sitelib}/jsondiff-*.egg-info %{_bindir}/jdiff %{_bindir}/jsondiff
Fixed.
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mhayden/python-jsondiff.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mhayden/python-jsondiff-1.3.0-1.fc34.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1967775
Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(zebob.m@gmail.com | |) |
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com --- Package approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1967775
--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-jsondiff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1967775
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-7188a11eaf has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-7188a11eaf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1967775
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-df2e8dd1af has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-df2e8dd1af` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-df2e8dd1af
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=1967775
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-7188a11eaf has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-7188a11eaf` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-7188a11eaf
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=1967775
Major Hayden 🤠 mhayden@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2021-06-10 01:11:26
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1967775
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|RAWHIDE |ERRATA
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-7188a11eaf 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=1967775
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-df2e8dd1af has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1967775
Alan Pevec apevec@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |apevec@redhat.com, | |ppitonak@redhat.com
--- Comment #11 from Alan Pevec apevec@redhat.com ---
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Unfortunately it does conflict in /usr/bin/jsondiff with python3-jsonpatch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2029805
I'm happy to remove jsondiff binary in jsonpatch RPM, assuming there isn't deps on this specific binary in RPMs.
# dnf repoquery --whatrequires python3-jsonpatch ceph-mgr-rook-2:16.2.6-2.fc35.noarch cloud-init-0:20.4-7.fc35.noarch python3-openstacksdk-0:0.55.0-4.fc35.noarch python3-warlock-0:1.3.3-7.fc35.noarch
For openstacksdk I can confirm jsonpatch is used only as a Python library.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1967775
--- Comment #12 from Major Hayden 🤠 mhayden@redhat.com --- Alan -- I brought it in for azure-cli and it's only used as a library, so I'll remove the binary from python3-jsondiff. 😉
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1967775
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-c02f80debf has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-c02f80debf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1967775
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-ba0c8b5b68 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-ba0c8b5b68
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1967775
--- Comment #15 from Major Hayden 🤠 mhayden@redhat.com --- Fix is on the way to stable. Thanks for letting me know, Alan!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1967775
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-c02f80debf has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-c02f80debf` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-c02f80debf
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=1967775
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-ba0c8b5b68 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-ba0c8b5b68` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-ba0c8b5b68
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=1967775
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-ba0c8b5b68 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=1967775
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-c02f80debf 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