https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2274082
Bug ID: 2274082 Summary: Review Request: python-lion-pytorch - Lion optimizer for pytorch Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: t.imarthurlee@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://github.com/timarthurlee/uml-redhat-capstone-2023/raw/main/rpmbuild/S... SRPM URL: https://github.com/timarthurlee/uml-redhat-capstone-2023/raw/main/rpmbuild/S... Description: Lion, EvoLved Sign Momentum, new optimizer discovered by Google Brain that is purportedly better than Adam(w), in Pytorch. Fedora Account System Username: timarthurlee This is one of my first packages and I will need a sponsor. I am submitting this as a part of the 2023 Friendly Fedora capstone project team at UMass Lowell.
The rpm was successfully built in koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=116112196
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2274082
Miroslav Suchý msuchy@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |msuchy@redhat.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value 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=2274082
--- Comment #1 from Miroslav Suchý msuchy@redhat.com --- [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff).
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /tmp/2274082-python-lion-pytorch/srpm/python-lion-pytorch.spec 2024-04-18 13:36:41.453951703 +0200 +++ /tmp/2274082-python-lion-pytorch/srpm-unpacked/python-lion-pytorch.spec 2024-04-09 02:00:00.000000000 +0200 @@ -16,5 +16,5 @@
%description -Lion, EvoLved Sign Momentum, new optimizer discovered by Google Brain that is purportedly better than Adam(w), in Pytorch. +
%package -n python3-%{pypi_nam
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2274082
Miroslav Suchý msuchy@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Miroslav Suchý msuchy@redhat.com --- 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. licensecheck in /tmp/2274082-python-lion-pytorch/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages, /usr/lib/python3.12 [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]: 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 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 5480 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python: [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [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
===== 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. [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. [?]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2274082
Miroslav Suchý msuchy@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |msuchy@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2274082
--- Comment #3 from Miroslav Suchý msuchy@redhat.com --- Ping. Are you still interested in this review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2274082
Tom.Rix@amd.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |Tom.Rix@amd.com Flags| |needinfo?(msuchy@redhat.com | |)
--- Comment #4 from Tom.Rix@amd.com --- Since this seems to have stalled, could we switch to mine ? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2334225 This is part of bunch i need for comfyui.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2274082
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org Last Closed| |2025-01-02 18:33:49
--- Comment #5 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 2334225 ***
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2274082
Miroslav Suchý msuchy@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(msuchy@redhat.com | |) |
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org