Bug 1726585

I'm unassigning myself due to capacity reasons.
I managed to run fedora-review on this.
It found nothing serious, but there are many C++ headers, please, run rpmlint on your RPMs and review those warnings.
If nobody takes this review until next week, I should be able to get back to it.

> but there are many C++ headers

Yes, there are, but expected, see the breakdown for rpmlint output:



pythran.x86_64: E: devel-dependency boost-devel

This is expected, this is a package that compiles code for the users.

pythran.x86_64: E: no-binary

This is expected, the package is noarch in its nature, yet arched for reasons explained in spec comment.

pythran.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/pythran-config
pythran.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pythran/pythonic/__builtin__/ArithmeticError.hpp
pythran.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pythran/pythonic/__builtin__/AssertionError.hpp
... snip ...
pythran.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pythran/pythonic/utils/yield.hpp

All the (hundreds) devel-file-in-non-devel-package warnings are expected, this is a package that compiles code for the users.

pythran.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/pythran/html/.buildinfo

This could possibly be removed if we really want to.

pythran.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/pythran/html/objects.inv
pythran.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/pythran/html/objects.inv

This is a "binary" file and rpmlint is wrong here.

pythran.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pythran
pythran.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pythran-config

This is correct but I won't write one.

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1642 warnings.

Added rm -rf docs/_build/html/.{doctrees,buildinfo} - running a scratchbuild now and will upload new spec and srpm if it builds.

For reference, this is the guidelines bit about the -devel packages:

"There are some notable exceptions to this packaging model, specifically: compilers often include development files in the main package because compilers are themselves only used for software development, thus, a split package model does not make any sense."

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages

(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #3)
> Added rm -rf docs/_build/html/.{doctrees,buildinfo} - running a scratchbuild
> now and will upload new spec and srpm if it builds.

Done. Links are the same:

Spec URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/pythran.spec
SRPM URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/pythran-0.9.2-1.fc30.src.rpm

Package approved.



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]: 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.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
     License", "Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial Public License
     (v4.0)", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Expat License", "*No
     copyright* BSD (unspecified)", "Apache License (v2.0)". 2354 files
     have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/bob/packaging/review/pythran/review-pythran/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[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.
[-]: 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 962560 bytes in 50 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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).
[?]: 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.
[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: 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.

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pythran

Thanks, Robert-André!

FEDORA-2019-ccc76902b4 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-ccc76902b4

pythran-0.9.2-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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-2019-ccc76902b4

pythran-0.9.2-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.