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 1875860 - Review Request: python-ciso8601 - Fast ISO8601 date time parser
Summary: Review Request: python-ciso8601 - Fast ISO8601 date time parser
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Mohamed El Morabity
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: IoT
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2020-09-04 14:50 UTC by Fabian Affolter
Modified: 2020-09-25 16:53 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2020-09-18 16:14:35 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
pikachu.2014: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Fabian Affolter 2020-09-04 14:50:23 UTC
Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-ciso8601.spec
SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-ciso8601-2.1.3-1.fc32.src.rpm

Project URL: https://github.com/closeio/ciso8601

Description:
ciso8601 converts ISO 8601 or RFC 3339 date time strings into Python
datetime objects. Since it's written as a C module, it is much faster
than other Python libraries.

Koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=50760842

rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint python-ciso8601-2.1.3-1.fc32.src.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint python3-ciso8601-2.1.3-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm 
python3-ciso8601.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/python3.8/site-packages/ciso8601.cpython-38-x86_64-linux-gnu.so
python3-ciso8601.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/python3.8/site-packages/ciso8601/py.typed
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.

Fedora Account System Username: fab

Comment 1 Mohamed El Morabity 2020-09-04 14:56:12 UTC
The package looks quite good at first sight.
Why did you disable debug packages?

Comment 2 Fabian Affolter 2020-09-07 08:45:54 UTC
(In reply to Mohamed El Morabity from comment #1)
> Why did you disable debug packages?

Was empty at some point during the creation of the package. Enabled now. Thanks for the feedback.

%changelog
* Mon Sep 07 2020 Fabian Affolter <mail> - 2.1.3-2
- Enable debug output

Updated files:
Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-ciso8601.spec
SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-ciso8601-2.1.3-2.fc32.src.rpm

Comment 3 Mohamed El Morabity 2020-09-07 10:11:02 UTC
Package APPROVED


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

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


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

C/C++:
[-]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[-]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[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]: 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.
[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.
[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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 40960 bytes in 2 files.
[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]: 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 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]: 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[?]: 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.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[?]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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-ciso8601-2.1.3-2.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          python-ciso8601-debugsource-2.1.3-2.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          python-ciso8601-2.1.3-2.fc34.src.rpm
python3-ciso8601.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ciso8601/py.typed
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
python-ciso8601-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/closeio/ciso8601 <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution>
python3-ciso8601.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/closeio/ciso8601 <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution>
=> False-positive
python3-ciso8601.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ciso8601/py.typed
=> Actually not an error, this is a marker file for typing support.
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
python3-ciso8601: /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ciso8601.cpython-39-x86_64-linux-gnu.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/closeio/ciso8601/archive/v2.1.3/ciso8601-2.1.3.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 4f27113e10622a3b86161c90bee80dc6f3ab8dcab9385092088db239e9fd94dc
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4f27113e10622a3b86161c90bee80dc6f3ab8dcab9385092088db239e9fd94dc


Requires
--------
python3-ciso8601 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    python(abi)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

python-ciso8601-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
python3-ciso8601:
    python-ciso8601
    python3-ciso8601
    python3-ciso8601(x86-64)
    python3.9-ciso8601
    python3.9dist(ciso8601)
    python3dist(ciso8601)

python-ciso8601-debugsource:
    python-ciso8601-debugsource
    python-ciso8601-debugsource(x86-64)

Comment 4 Fabian Affolter 2020-09-07 16:00:30 UTC
Thanks for the review.

Comment 5 Gwyn Ciesla 2020-09-08 13:44:14 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-ciso8601

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2020-09-09 14:10:50 UTC
FEDORA-2020-8c99db98f4 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-8c99db98f4

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2020-09-09 14:16:27 UTC
FEDORA-2020-d0782d3660 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d0782d3660

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2020-09-10 06:21:35 UTC
FEDORA-2020-bb71cd22c4 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-bb71cd22c4

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2020-09-10 06:28:39 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-216bb6197e has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-216bb6197e

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2020-09-10 15:48:18 UTC
FEDORA-2020-8c99db98f4 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-8c99db98f4 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-8c99db98f4

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2020-09-10 17:47:40 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-216bb6197e has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-216bb6197e

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2020-09-10 18:25:52 UTC
FEDORA-2020-d0782d3660 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-d0782d3660 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d0782d3660

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2020-09-10 18:29:12 UTC
FEDORA-2020-bb71cd22c4 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-bb71cd22c4 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-bb71cd22c4

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2020-09-18 16:14:35 UTC
FEDORA-2020-d0782d3660 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2020-09-18 17:16:43 UTC
FEDORA-2020-bb71cd22c4 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 16 Fedora Update System 2020-09-25 16:29:05 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-216bb6197e has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 17 Fedora Update System 2020-09-25 16:53:30 UTC
FEDORA-2020-8c99db98f4 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.