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
Bug 2158694 - Review Request: python-recordclass - Mutable variant of namedtuple
Summary: Review Request: python-recordclass - Mutable variant of namedtuple
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Michel Lind
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
Blocks: ITP-mathics
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2023-01-06 05:53 UTC by Davide Cavalca
Modified: 2023-01-25 02:35 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2023-01-09 23:28:20 UTC
Type: ---
michel: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Davide Cavalca 2023-01-06 05:53:44 UTC
Spec URL:

Recordclass is Python library implementing a mutable variant of namedtuple,
which support assignments, and other memory saving variants.

Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca

Comment 1 Davide Cavalca 2023-01-06 05:53:46 UTC
This package built on koji:

Comment 3 Michel Lind 2023-01-07 21:31:38 UTC
LGTM; APPROVED. Two notes:

- License check found some CC-1.0 files. These are for appveyor and not shipped so it's fine
- Consider splitting the examples to a -doc subpackage, it's quite large (~ 2.7 MB)

Package Review

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

- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
  (~1MB) or number of files.
  Note: Documentation size is 2641920 bytes in 56 files.

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

[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: 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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT
     License", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0". 84 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
[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
[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.
[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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
[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 =====

[-]: 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
[x]: 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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[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
[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 =====

[!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
     Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 2703360 bytes in /usr/share
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Cannot parse rpmlint output:

Rpmlint (installed packages)
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
checks: 31, packages: 2

python3-recordclass.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python3-recordclass/examples/HTRU_2.csv
python3-recordclass.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python3-recordclass/examples/example.csv
python3-recordclass.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python3-recordclass/examples/example.txt
python3-recordclass.x86_64: W: package-with-huge-docs 72%
python3-recordclass.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/recordclass/test/typing/ /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/recordclass/test/match/
python3-recordclass.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/python3-recordclass/examples/example.txt /usr/share/doc/python3-recordclass/examples/example.csv
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s 

Unversioned so-files
python3-recordclass: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/recordclass/
python3-recordclass: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/recordclass/
python3-recordclass: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/recordclass/
python3-recordclass: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/recordclass/

Source checksums
---------------- :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : b0ad89f013798d71e8e480c69b4b59d07f10626c7f7ca33b77cfcca326d1f19f
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b0ad89f013798d71e8e480c69b4b59d07f10626c7f7ca33b77cfcca326d1f19f

python3-recordclass (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

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



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2158694
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Python, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: R, fonts, Perl, PHP, Java, SugarActivity, Haskell, Ocaml

Comment 4 Davide Cavalca 2023-01-07 21:37:34 UTC

$ fedpkg request-repo python-recordclass 2158694
$ fedpkg request-branch --repo python-recordclass f37
$ fedpkg request-branch --repo python-recordclass f36

Comment 5 Gwyn Ciesla 2023-01-09 14:19:10 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2023-01-09 23:25:39 UTC
FEDORA-2023-d3cbdc0641 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38.

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2023-01-09 23:28:20 UTC
FEDORA-2023-d3cbdc0641 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2023-01-23 00:35:39 UTC
FEDORA-2023-fbb955dd0f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37.

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2023-01-23 00:35:50 UTC
FEDORA-2023-99c173ba9b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36.

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2023-01-25 01:46:50 UTC
FEDORA-2023-fbb955dd0f has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2023-01-25 02:35:44 UTC
FEDORA-2023-99c173ba9b has been pushed to the Fedora 36 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.