https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243830
Bug ID: 2243830 Summary: Review Request: python-vhacdx - Python bindings for V-HACD Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: code@musicinmybrain.net QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Blocks: 1276941 (fedora-neuro,NeuroFedora) Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-vhacdx.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-vhacdx-0.0.4-1.fc38.src.rpm Description:
A very simple and raw Python binding for V-HACD that is forked from https://github.com/thomwolf/pyVHACD which generates an approximate convex decomposition of a triangle mesh.
Fedora Account System Username: music
Koji scratch builds:
F40: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=107443006 F39: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=107443007 F38: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=107443008 F37: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=107443009
This is a fork of pyVHACD (bug 2241628, https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pyvhacd) by the maintainer of trimesh. It is a new dependency for trimesh 4.0.0, replacing the original pyVHACD dependency used through 4.0.0rc1. This will be a neuro-sig package. I will most likely orphan python-pyvhacd since it is no longer needed for python-trimesh.
Referenced Bugs:
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=2243830
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2239764
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2239764 [Bug 2239764] python-trimesh-4.0.0 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243830
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/trimesh/ | |vhacdx
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6522971 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243830
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243830
--- Comment #2 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/reviews/python-vhacdx/2243830-python- vhacdx/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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: 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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 8894 bytes in 1 files. [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. [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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-vhacdx [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-vhacdx-0.0.4-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm python-vhacdx-debugsource-0.0.4-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm python-vhacdx-0.0.4-1.fc38.src.rpm ================================= rpmlint session starts ================================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/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/tmpnh1zcali')] checks: 31, packages: 3
== 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 7.0 s =
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/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: 31, packages: 2
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.9 s
Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-vhacdx: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/vhacdx.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/v/vhacdx/vhacdx-0.0.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 86fe230515bb2c8757380802b06cf4bc0683ed6c63b7a8e1a51b62403d2ecdd5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 86fe230515bb2c8757380802b06cf4bc0683ed6c63b7a8e1a51b62403d2ecdd5
Requires -------- python3-vhacdx (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.13)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.2)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) python(abi) python3.11dist(numpy) rtld(GNU_HASH)
python-vhacdx-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- python3-vhacdx: python-vhacdx python3-vhacdx python3-vhacdx(x86-64) python3.11-vhacdx python3.11dist(vhacdx) python3dist(vhacdx)
python-vhacdx-debugsource: python-vhacdx-debugsource python-vhacdx-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2243830 -m fedora-38-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, fonts, Perl, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, PHP, Java, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments: a) Perhaps remove src/vhacds.egg-info directory in prep section b) Should upstream also carry a BSD license file? c) Otherwise seems ok.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243830
--- Comment #3 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- Thank you for the review!
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #2)
Comments: a) Perhaps remove src/vhacds.egg-info directory in prep section
It’s my understanding that this is a harmless but basically obsolete practice at this point. There certainly is no danger of shipping upstream egg-info metadata by accident in pyproject-rpm-macros based packages. If nothing else, they ship dist-info rather than egg-info.
b) Should upstream also carry a BSD license file?
Strictly speaking, they probably should. The source distribution includes the necessary license text in the header itself, but the binary wheels include machine code compiled from the V-HACD header-only C++ library but don’t include the BSD license text.
I opened:
Add the V-HACD license to the LICENSE file https://github.com/trimesh/vhacdx/pull/3
I think it would be inappropriate for me to patch the license file downstream unless the PR is merged. Instead, I’ll alter the spec file to ship a copy of the license file from v-hacd-devel. It’s worth noting that few packages even bother to account for header-only libraries in their License expressions, and attempting to ship copies of their header-only dependencies’ license files is probably vanishingly rare.
New Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-vhacdx.spec New SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-vhacdx-0.0.4-1.fc38.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243830
--- Comment #4 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- Sorry, let me fix that:
New Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20231013/python-vhacdx.spec New SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20231013/python-vhacdx-0.0.4-1.fc38.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243830
--- Comment #5 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- There is some discussion relevant to egg-info removal in bug 1825455.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243830
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6524290 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243830
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 1993804 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1993804&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6524290 to 6524292
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243830
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6524292 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243830
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Thanks. It does build when egg-info directory is removed: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=107475315 At present the pre-generated files are not used, so not essential to remove them. Approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243830
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-5aa38671b3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-5aa38671b3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243830
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2023-10-24 02:22:10
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-5aa38671b3 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243830
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-38de4a6a4e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-38de4a6a4e
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243830
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-0da440bd14 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-0da440bd14
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243830
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-0924d8a152 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-0924d8a152
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243830
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-0924d8a152 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-0924d8a152 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-0924d8a152
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=2243830
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-0da440bd14 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-0da440bd14 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-0da440bd14
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=2243830
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-38de4a6a4e has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-38de4a6a4e *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-38de4a6a4e
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=2243830
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-0924d8a152 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243830
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-0da440bd14 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243830
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-38de4a6a4e has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243830
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2024-ddbad360cb (python-vhacdx-0.0.4-6.el10_0) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.0. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-ddbad360cb
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243830
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2024-ddbad360cb (python-vhacdx-0.0.4-6.el10_0) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.0 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com