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 2235060 (python-dparse2) - Review Request: python-dparse2 - Parser for Python dependency files
Summary: Review Request: python-dparse2 - Parser for Python dependency files
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: python-dparse2
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jerry James
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: https://github.com/nexB/dparse2
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2023-08-26 11:21 UTC by Robert-André Mauchin 🐧
Modified: 2023-11-06 04:16 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2023-11-06 01:30:18 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
loganjerry: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2023-08-26 11:21:09 UTC
Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-dparse2.spec
SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-dparse2-0.7.0-1.fc38.src.rpm

Description:
A parser for Python dependency files.

Fedora Account System Username: eclipseo

To build it against the dependencies, use the following COPR in your rawhide mock.cfg:

[copr:copr.fedorainfracloud.org:eclipseo:scancode-toolkit]
name=Copr repo for scancode-toolkit owned by eclipseo
baseurl=https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/eclipseo/scancode-toolkit/fedora-rawhide-/
type=rpm-md
skip_if_unavailable=True
gpgcheck=1
gpgkey=https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/eclipseo/scancode-toolkit/pubkey.gpg
repo_gpgcheck=0
enabled=1
enabled_metadata=1

Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2023-08-26 11:25:07 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6345540
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2235060-python-dparse2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06345540-python-dparse2/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 2 Jerry James 2023-09-11 16:29:58 UTC
I will take this review.

Comment 3 Jerry James 2023-09-11 16:40:28 UTC
Package Review
==============

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

Issues:
=======
- Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
  Note: python3-toml is deprecated, you must not depend on it.
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/deprecating-packages/

  It is only used in dparse2/parser.py.  Please patch it to use tomli for
  python < 3.11 (i.e., Fedora 37) and tomllib for python >= 3.11 (i.e.,
  Fedora 38+).

- The License field says Apache-2.0, but I don't see any evidence of that
  license.  The LICENSE file contains the MIT license.

- Remove the -t flag from %pyproject_buildrequires, or test with %tox instead
  of %pytest.

- I question the value of including CONTRIBUTING.rst as %doc.

===== 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.
[!]: 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". 7 files have unknown license.
[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: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 3948 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
[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

===== 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).
[?]: 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
     architectures.
[x]: %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 all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-dparse2-0.7.0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm
          python-dparse2-0.7.0-1.fc40.src.rpm
================================================ rpmlint session starts ================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpjodf_qei')]
checks: 31, packages: 2

================= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s =================




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/nexB/dparse2/archive/0.7.0/dparse2-0.7.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : b90d87e15553a3a741be96a168a82075731c83bb4a5302e84ac9ea3ff3692a5f
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b90d87e15553a3a741be96a168a82075731c83bb4a5302e84ac9ea3ff3692a5f


Requires
--------
python3-dparse2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3.12dist(packvers)
    python3.12dist(pyyaml)
    python3.12dist(toml)



Provides
--------
python3-dparse2:
    python-dparse2
    python3-dparse2
    python3.12-dparse2
    python3.12dist(dparse2)
    python3dist(dparse2)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2235060 -m fedora-rawhide-eclipseo
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-eclipseo
Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Ruby, PHP, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, fonts
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comment 5 Fedora Review Service 2023-10-15 15:34:56 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6528083
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2235060-python-dparse2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06528083-python-dparse2/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 6 Jerry James 2023-10-15 16:38:11 UTC
That looks good.  This package is APPROVED.

Comment 7 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2023-10-21 15:49:42 UTC
Thank you!

https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/57431

Comment 8 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2023-10-21 15:49:49 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-dparse2

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2023-10-28 13:08:07 UTC
FEDORA-2023-a40cdfe2f5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-a40cdfe2f5

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2023-10-28 13:19:18 UTC
FEDORA-2023-73da4ac13e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-73da4ac13e

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2023-10-28 13:32:08 UTC
FEDORA-2023-b2554d96ea has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-b2554d96ea

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2023-10-29 01:21:31 UTC
FEDORA-2023-a40cdfe2f5 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-a40cdfe2f5 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-a40cdfe2f5

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

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2023-10-29 01:54:58 UTC
FEDORA-2023-73da4ac13e has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-73da4ac13e \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-73da4ac13e

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

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2023-10-29 02:13:56 UTC
FEDORA-2023-b2554d96ea has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-b2554d96ea \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-b2554d96ea

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

Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2023-11-06 01:30:18 UTC
FEDORA-2023-a40cdfe2f5 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 16 Fedora Update System 2023-11-06 01:36:23 UTC
FEDORA-2023-73da4ac13e has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 17 Fedora Update System 2023-11-06 04:16:24 UTC
FEDORA-2023-b2554d96ea has been pushed to the Fedora 37 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.