https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2271900

Tom Rix trix@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2255715

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2255715 [Bug 2255715] Review Request: python-torchtext - Data loaders and abstractions for language processing, powered by PyTorch

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2271900

Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |topazus@outlook.com Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |topazus@outlook.com

--- Comment #2 from Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com --- Taking this.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2271900

--- Comment #4 from Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com ---

# Upstream does not tag, this is the commit for 0.2.1 %global commit0 683b09a352cc426851adc2e3a9f46e0ab25e4dee

The source code published on pypi does not included the tests, so you grab the source code from specific commit of the repo. Well, it makes sense.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2271900

--- Comment #6 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2024046 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2024046&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 7222343 to 7227328

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2271900

Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+

--- Comment #8 from Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com --- + license is acceptable for Fedora: MIT + builds and installs OK + BR/P/R look correct + no scriptlets needed or present + rpmlint finds no big issue

Approved this.

Package Review ==============

Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed

Issues: ======= - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel

===== MUST items =====

Generic: [ ]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc, /usr/lib/python3.12, /usr/lib, /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages, /usr/share, /usr/share/licenses, /usr [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc, /usr/lib/python3.12, /usr/lib, /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages, /usr/share, /usr/share/licenses, /usr [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 1832 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python: [ ]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [ ]: 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]: 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

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic: [!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [ ]: 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). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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: No rpmlint messages.

Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-expecttest-0.2.1-1.fc41.noarch.rpm python-expecttest-0.2.1-1.fc41.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp5i4wecde')] checks: 32, packages: 2

2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1

0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s (none): E: there is no installed rpm "python3-expecttest". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting.

Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ezyang/expecttest/archive/683b09a352cc426851adc2e3a9f46e0... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8314cbd9ab2256a104194f33a2925415447f91ac165891f0c5f0580cf1958c1e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8314cbd9ab2256a104194f33a2925415447f91ac165891f0c5f0580cf1958c1e

Requires -------- python3-expecttest (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi)

Provides -------- python3-expecttest: python-expecttest python3-expecttest python3.12-expecttest python3.12dist(expecttest) python3dist(expecttest)

Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name python-expecttest --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, Perl, R, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, PHP, C/C++, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2271900

Tom Rix trix@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Status|POST |CLOSED Last Closed| |2024-04-14 14:09:20