Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 1481046
Summary: | Review Request: python-html5-parser - A fast, standards compliant, C based, HTML 5 parser for python | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Kevin Fenzi <kevin> | ||||
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Raphael Groner <projects.rg> | ||||
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> | ||||
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||
Priority: | medium | ||||||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | package-review, projects.rg | ||||
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | projects.rg:
fedora-review+
|
||||
Target Release: | --- | ||||||
Hardware: | All | ||||||
OS: | Linux | ||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |||||
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
Last Closed: | 2017-11-21 23:27:46 UTC | Type: | --- | ||||
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||
Embargoed: | |||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Kevin Fenzi
2017-08-13 21:02:05 UTC
Hi Kevin, are you interested in a review swap, maybe you can look into bug #1481775? Sure. I can... pretty busy, but I can try and get it in the next few days. Before I can run fedora-review successfully, some general hints: - gumbo[-parser] is available as a separate package, please try to unbundle. - There's no generation of useful debuginfo. As cpython extension is used, we need some debuginfo. Sorry for the delay of my answer. - You may want to use %{sum} also in/for the descriptions. So, the version of gumbo here is not the normal upstream one, but instead it's https://github.com/Sigil-Ebook/sigil-gumbo which is a modified fork. They have had no releases and warn against trying to replace their version with the orig one. :( So, I fear at least for now we need to bundle it. Added a note about that to the spec. The debuginfo issue is due to it overriding ldflags to add -O3. I think I have fixed that by telling it to do a debug build. Spec URL: http://www.scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/review/python-html5-parser/python-html5-parser.spec SRPM URL: http://www.scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/review/python-html5-parser/python-html5-parser-0.4.4-2.fc28.src.rpm IMHO according to the guidelines, we must add at least a virtual provides: Provides: gumbo-parser-static There's no possibility to properly unbundle because of obvious modifications in html5-parser/gumbo compared to the available API in gumbo-parser/src, visible by diff'ing over the headers (see following attachment). It's not only about bundling gumbo but also gumbo gets compiled as a static library *and linked internally* by help from Extension of setuptools. Therefore, it's impossible to have a separate devel subpackage with any explicit gumbo library (and headers not installed by build tool, so useless anyhow), as assumed in the guidelines: see 2. Static libraries only. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries cd html5-parser/gumbo ; find . -name \*.h -exec diff -rNu '{}' ../../gumbo-parser/src/'{}' \; >gumbo.diff Created attachment 1327399 [details]
gumbo.diff
cd html5-parser/gumbo ; find . -name \*.h -exec diff -rNu '{}' ../../gumbo-parser/src/'{}' \; >/tmp/gumbo.diff
So, I never got any replies on my post to the packaging list. ;( I can file a ticket, but now that I come back to it, I am not sure what the outstanding issue is here? Is "Provides: bundled(sigil-gumbo)" not right/good enough? (In reply to Kevin Fenzi from comment #9) > So, I never got any replies on my post to the packaging list. ;( > > I can file a ticket, but now that I come back to it, I am not sure what the > outstanding issue is here? Is "Provides: bundled(sigil-gumbo)" not > right/good enough? There's no package sigil-gumbo. So your suggestion is pointless. My suggestion is explained in comment #6: Provides: gumbo-parser-static (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #10) > > There's no package sigil-gumbo. So your suggestion is pointless. Well, there's not currently, there may be someday. It gets back to what you think the reason for adding the Provides is. IMHO it's to allow someone to see whats bundled in case they want to check all packages for a known issue. That doesn't require that the package is in Fedora only that packages that bundle it indicate so. > > My suggestion is explained in comment #6: > Provides: gumbo-parser-static But thats just incorrect, because it's not gumbo-parser, also that makes it look like this thing provides a static lib someone could link to per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries So, I guess I should file a FPC ticket and ask them what to put in Provides in this case. ok. I filed the ticket and got a suggestion to just add both projects at the time they were forked. FPC ticket: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/722 Here's what I am adding to the spec: # This package bundles sigil-gumbo a fork of gumbo # Base project: https://github.com/google/gumbo-parser # Forked from above: https://github.com/Sigil-Ebook/sigil-gumbo # It also patches that bundled copy with other changes. # sigul-gumbo bundled here was added 20170601 Provides: bundled(sigil-gumbo) = 0.9.3-20170601git0830e1145fe08 # sigul-gumbo forked off grumbo-parser at this commit in 20160216 Provides: bundled(gumbo-parser) = 0.9.3-20160216git69b580ab4de04 New spec/src.rpm: Spec URL: http://www.scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/review/python-html5-parser/python-html5-parser.spec SRPM URL: http://www.scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/review/python-html5-parser/python-html5-parser-0.4.4-2.fc28.src.rpm New scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=22571236 APPROVED There are no real blockers. Please consider to fix hints marked with [!] and commented below while importing the package. 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]: Package contains no static executables. [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. => OK. Because python. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache", "MIT/X11 (BSD like) Apache (v2.0)", "Apache", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 41 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/builder/fedora-review/1481046-python- html5-parser/licensecheck.txt => Add MIT for html5-parser-0.4.4/gumbo/utf8.c and mention as comment. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. => OK, see discussion below. [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. [!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. => Please correct two typos: s|grumbo-parser|gumbo-parser|g s|sigul-gumbo|sigil-gumbo|g [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. => Sources found in debugsource subpackage. [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 20480 bytes in 2 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines => See comments above. [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]: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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. [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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2-html5-parser , python3-html5-parser , python-html5-parser- debuginfo => Ignore. There's no base package, because python. [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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: python2-html5-parser-0.4.4-2.fc28.x86_64.rpm python3-html5-parser-0.4.4-2.fc28.x86_64.rpm python-html5-parser-debuginfo-0.4.4-2.fc28.x86_64.rpm python-html5-parser-0.4.4-2.fc28.src.rpm 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: python-html5-parser-debuginfo-0.4.4-2.fc28.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- python-html5-parser-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python2-html5-parser (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython2.7.so.1.0()(64bit) libxml2.so.2()(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.4.30)(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.6.0)(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) python3-html5-parser (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython3.6m.so.1.0()(64bit) libxml2.so.2()(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.4.30)(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.6.0)(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- python-html5-parser-debuginfo: python-html5-parser-debuginfo python-html5-parser-debuginfo(x86-64) python2-html5-parser: bundled(gumbo-parser) bundled(sigil-gumbo) python-html5-parser python-html5-parser(x86-64) python2-html5-parser python2-html5-parser(x86-64) python2.7dist(html5-parser) python2dist(html5-parser) python3-html5-parser: bundled(gumbo-parser) bundled(sigil-gumbo) python3-html5-parser python3-html5-parser(x86-64) python3.6dist(html5-parser) python3dist(html5-parser) Unversioned so-files -------------------- python2-html5-parser: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/html5_parser/html_parser.so python3-html5-parser: /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/html5_parser/html_parser.cpython-36m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/h/html5-parser/html5-parser-0.4.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b9f3a1d4cdb8742e8e4ecafab04bff541bde4ff09af233293ed0b94028ec1ab5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b9f3a1d4cdb8742e8e4ecafab04bff541bde4ff09af233293ed0b94028ec1ab5 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1481046 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 Thanks! Will fix those things before import... (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-html5-parser python-html5-parser-0.4.4-3.fc27 calibre-3.10.0-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-4c28e33e56 calibre-3.10.0-1.fc27, python-html5-parser-0.4.4-3.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-4c28e33e56 calibre-3.10.0-2.fc27 python-html5-parser-0.4.4-3.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-4c28e33e56 calibre-3.10.0-2.fc27, python-html5-parser-0.4.4-3.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-4c28e33e56 calibre-3.11.1-1.fc27 python-html5-parser-0.4.4-3.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-4c28e33e56 calibre-3.11.1-1.fc27, python-html5-parser-0.4.4-3.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-4c28e33e56 calibre-3.11.1-2.fc27 python-html5-parser-0.4.4-4.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-4c28e33e56 calibre-3.11.1-2.fc27, python-html5-parser-0.4.4-4.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-4c28e33e56 calibre-3.11.1-2.fc27, python-html5-parser-0.4.4-4.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |