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 2002848
| Summary: | Review Request: python-datalad - Keep code, data, containers under control with git and git-annex | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | hcsomort, package-review, zbyszek |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | zbyszek:
fedora-review+
|
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2021-09-20 13:55:24 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: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 1276941, 1931183 | ||
|
Description
Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)
2021-09-09 20:20:33 UTC
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=75426623 > The full documentation is available at http://docs.datalad.org and > http://handbook.datalad.org provides a hands-on crash-course on DataLad > https://neurostars.org/tag/datalad https:// seems to work everywhere. > All bugs, concerns, and enhancement requests for this software can be submitted > here: https://github.com/datalad/datalad/issues I don't think we want to direct *all* issue there. Maybe say that for packaging issues, bugzilla should be used, but there's also an upstream bugtracker… > %package -n python3-datalad I think it's appropriate to call this with the python3- prefix, since it's provides a python module, and people might use that module from other code. But maybe add "Provides: datalad" to match the executable name? + package name is OK + license is acceptable for Fedora (MIT) + license is specified correctly (*) + builds and installs OK + BR/R/P look correct + fedora-review is happy + rpmlint shows only bogus spelling complaints, as usual (*) There's a GPLv3 file in sources, but it doesn't appear in the built package. Package is APPROVED. Thanks very much for the review Zbigniew! (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #2) > > The full documentation is available at http://docs.datalad.org and > > http://handbook.datalad.org provides a hands-on crash-course on DataLad > > https://neurostars.org/tag/datalad > > https:// seems to work everywhere. Updated all links to use https > > > All bugs, concerns, and enhancement requests for this software can be submitted > > here: https://github.com/datalad/datalad/issues > > I don't think we want to direct *all* issue there. Maybe say that for > packaging > issues, bugzilla should be used, but there's also an upstream bugtracker… I've just removed that line. The main documentation at datalad.org already notes their GitHub etc. > > > %package -n python3-datalad > > I think it's appropriate to call this with the python3- prefix, since it's > provides a python module, and people might use that module from other code. > But maybe add "Provides: datalad" to match the executable name? Added. > > + package name is OK > + license is acceptable for Fedora (MIT) > + license is specified correctly (*) > + builds and installs OK > + BR/R/P look correct > + fedora-review is happy > + rpmlint shows only bogus spelling complaints, as usual > > (*) There's a GPLv3 file in sources, but it doesn't appear in the built > package. > > Package is APPROVED. Cheers, Requested SCM now. Updated URLs: Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-datalad/python-datalad.spec SRPM URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-datalad/python-datalad-0.14.7-1.fc34.src.rpm (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-datalad FEDORA-2021-a68dc4be69 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-a68dc4be69 FEDORA-2021-3902f1860d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-3902f1860d FEDORA-2021-a68dc4be69 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-a68dc4be69 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-a68dc4be69 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-2021-3902f1860d has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-3902f1860d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-3902f1860d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-2021-3902f1860d has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. Little bit late to the party, but as I was checking out this package it seems to me that parts of the code have a different license (Python and BSD-3), as specified in [datalad/COPYING] '3rd Party Code'. Shouldn't the 'License' field follow the [Multiple Licensing Scenario] in this case? [datalad/COPYING]: https://github.com/datalad/datalad/blob/master/COPYING#L32 [Multiple Licensing Scenario]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_multiple_licensing_scenarios Hi Hunor, Thanks for the note. You are looking at the master branch, but we're still on 0.14.7 in Fedora where the third party code is MIT or BSD licensed: https://github.com/datalad/datalad/blob/0.14.7/COPYING I've just double-checked the licenses in the tar too, just to be sure: $ licensecheck -r . | sed '/UNKNOWN/ d' ./datalad-0.14.7/.zenodo.json: MIT License ./datalad-0.14.7/COPYING: MIT License ./datalad-0.14.7/README.md: *No copyright* MIT License ./datalad-0.14.7/setup.py: *No copyright* MIT License ./datalad-0.14.7/versioneer.py: *No copyright* Public domain ./datalad-0.14.7/datalad/utils.py: *No copyright* MIT License ./datalad-0.14.7/sandbox/git-annex-remote-gitobjects: GNU General Public License, Version 3 ./datalad-0.14.7/tools/mimic_merges: MIT License ./datalad-0.14.7/tools/mimic_repo: MIT License ./datalad-0.14.7/tools/monitor-interrupts.py: MIT License ./datalad-0.14.7/tools/urlinfo: MIT License ./datalad-0.14.7/datalad/interface/rerun.py: *No copyright* [generated file] ./datalad-0.14.7/datalad/support/collections.py: *No copyright* MIT License ./datalad-0.14.7/datalad/support/configparserinc.py: *No copyright* MIT License ./datalad-0.14.7/datalad/plugin/tests/test_plugins.py: *No copyright* Open Data Commons Public Domain Dedication & License ./datalad-0.14.7/datalad/support/tests/test_locking.py: *No copyright* MIT License ./datalad-0.14.7/datalad/support/third/nda_aws_token_generator.py: *No copyright* MIT License ./datalad-0.14.7/datalad/resources/website/assets/js/jquery-2.2.4.js: MIT License ./datalad-0.14.7/datalad/resources/website/assets/js/jquery.dataTables-1.10.12.js: MIT License ./datalad-0.14.7/datalad/resources/website/assets/js/md5-2.3.0.js: MIT License ./datalad-0.14.7/datalad/resources/website/tests/qunit/qunit-2.0.1.css: MIT License ./datalad-0.14.7/datalad/resources/website/tests/qunit/qunit-2.0.1.js: MIT License When we update to the next release, we'll have to check the license again etc. and update the spec accordingly. Thanks for pointing it out---good to have it noted. Cheers, I've opened this bug now. Since it's bundling a few bits which do end up in the rpm, I need to mention them in the spec: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2007263 FEDORA-2021-a68dc4be69 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. |