Bug 1857767
Summary: | Review Request: python-ephem - Compute positions of the planets and stars | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Fabian Affolter <mail> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Miro Hrončok <mhroncok> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | mhroncok, package-review |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | mhroncok:
fedora-review+
|
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2020-09-25 16:59:34 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: | 1855434, 1857281, 1871595 |
Description
Fabian Affolter
2020-07-16 14:21:48 UTC
Spec sanity: %{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{pypi_name}} This can be dropped if you target rawhide only (which you probably should because Fedora 31 and 32 have python3-pyephem and his package would conflict). Consider adding obsoletes/provides for python3-pyephem. PYTHONPATH=%{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib} pytest-%{python3_version} -v tests This can be replaced with simpler: %pytest -v tests -k "not test_jpl.py" Please add a comment about why is this deselected. Consider using --ignore on the file directly. %ifnarch armv7hl i686 Why are all the tests skipped on 32bit? Plese add a comment that explains it and execute at least some tests if possible. %{python3_sitearch}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}-py%{python3_version}.egg-info Consider adding trailing slash to ensure this is a directory. s/his package/this package/ %changelog * Tue Sep 01 2020 Fabian Affolter <mail> - 3.7.7.1-2 - Update spec file (rhbz#1857767) Updated files: Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-ephem.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-ephem-3.7.7.1-2.fc32.src.rpm (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #1) > Spec sanity: > > %{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{pypi_name}} > > > This can be dropped if you target rawhide only (which you probably should > because Fedora 31 and 32 have python3-pyephem and his package would > conflict). Removed. > Consider adding obsoletes/provides for python3-pyephem. Added. But the obsolete uses <=, please switch to <. <= is a tad confusing wrt release (and works the same in this case). > PYTHONPATH=%{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib} pytest-%{python3_version} -v > tests > > This can be replaced with simpler: > > %pytest -v tests Used. > -k "not test_jpl.py" > > Please add a comment about why is this deselected. Consider using --ignore > on the file directly. Not added. > %ifnarch armv7hl i686 > > Why are all the tests skipped on 32bit? Plese add a comment that explains it > and execute at least some tests if possible. The entire ifnarch is gone, thanks. > %{python3_sitearch}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}-py%{python3_version}.egg-info > > Consider adding trailing slash to ensure this is a directory. Not added. When you response to my feedback with a new spec file, could you please actually say what was changed? Otherwise I need to backtrack your changes. Thank you. Checking: python3-ephem-3.7.7.1-2.fc34.x86_64.rpm python-ephem-doc-3.7.7.1-2.fc34.x86_64.rpm python-ephem-debugsource-3.7.7.1-2.fc34.x86_64.rpm python-ephem-3.7.7.1-2.fc34.src.rpm python3-ephem.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/.pytest_cache python3-ephem.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/.pytest_cache python3-ephem.x86_64: E: version-control-internal-file /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/.pytest_cache/.gitignore python3-ephem.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/tests/test_angles.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-ephem.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/tests/test_bodies.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-ephem.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/tests/test_cities.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-ephem.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/tests/test_constants.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-ephem.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/tests/test_dates.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-ephem.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/tests/test_jpl.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-ephem.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/tests/test_launchpad_236872.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-ephem.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/tests/test_launchpad_244811.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-ephem.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/tests/test_locales.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-ephem.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/tests/test_observers.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-ephem.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/tests/test_rst.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-ephem.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/tests/test_stars.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-ephem.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/tests/test_usno.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-ephem.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/tests/test_usno_equinoxes.py 644 /usr/bin/env python 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 15 errors, 2 warnings. Before looking into the shebangs, consider not shipping /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/tests at all or packaging itto a subpackage. (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #4) > (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #1) > > Consider adding obsoletes/provides for python3-pyephem. > > Added. But the obsolete uses <=, please switch to <. <= is a tad confusing > wrt release (and works the same in this case). Changed > > -k "not test_jpl.py" > > > > Please add a comment about why is this deselected. Consider using --ignore > > on the file directly. > > Not added. Because this test is failing. > > %{python3_sitearch}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}-py%{python3_version}.egg-info > > > > Consider adding trailing slash to ensure this is a directory. > > Not added. It's a file. > When you response to my feedback with a new spec file, could you please > actually say what was changed? Otherwise I need to backtrack your changes. > Thank you. Sure, sorry. %changelog * Mon Sep 14 2020 Fabian Affolter <mail> - 3.7.7.1-3 - Ignore JPLTest and remove left-overs from tests - Don't ship tests Updated files: Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-ephem.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-ephem-3.7.7.1-3.fc32.src.rpm > It's a file. Indeed. In that case, the setuptools BuildRequires is superfluous. > Because this test is failing. I figured that much ;) Is there an upstream report about this? (To be clear: This is not a blocker for the review.) Thanks for the update, running fedora-review again. I've noticed the following files are packaged in python3-ephem: /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/doc /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/doc/CHANGELOG.rst /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/doc/angle.rst /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/doc/catalogs.rst /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/doc/coordinates.rst /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/doc/date.rst /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/doc/examples.rst /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/doc/index.rst /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/doc/newton.rst /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/doc/quick.rst /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/doc/radec.rst /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/doc/reference.rst /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/doc/rise-set.rst /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/doc/tutorial.rst Are they used at runtime? If not, consider moving them to the doc package or not packaging them at all. Suggestions: 1) Try making the doc package noarch and see if a Koji build still succeeds. 2) Drop the unused BR on setuptools. 3) Move or remove site-packages/ephem/doc. 4) Add an upstream issue link to a comment for the deselected test. I leave that up to you. Consider the package APPROVED otherwise. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: 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]: 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. 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: "GNU Lesser General Public License (v3)", "Unknown or generated". [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. [x]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of 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: 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]: 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 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: Package functions as described. [?]: 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: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1054720 bytes in /usr/share [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-ephem-3.7.7.1-3.fc34.x86_64.rpm python-ephem-doc-3.7.7.1-3.fc34.x86_64.rpm python-ephem-debugsource-3.7.7.1-3.fc34.x86_64.rpm python-ephem-3.7.7.1-3.fc34.src.rpm 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-ephem: /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/_libastro.cpython-39-x86_64-linux-gnu.so Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/e/ephem/ephem-3.7.7.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 36b51a8dc7cfdeb456dd6b8ab811accab8341b2d562ee3c6f4c86f6d3dbb984e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 36b51a8dc7cfdeb456dd6b8ab811accab8341b2d562ee3c6f4c86f6d3dbb984e Requires -------- python3-ephem (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) python-ephem-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python-ephem-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-ephem: python-ephem python3-ephem python3-ephem(x86-64) python3-pyephem python3.9-ephem python3.9dist(ephem) python3dist(ephem) python-ephem-doc: python-ephem-doc python-ephem-doc(x86-64) python-ephem-debugsource: python-ephem-debugsource python-ephem-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.0 (fed5495) last change: 2019-03-17 Command line :try-fedora-review -b 1857767 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --mock-options=--enablerepo=local Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++, Python Disabled plugins: R, Haskell, SugarActivity, PHP, Ruby, Java, fonts, Perl, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-ephem FEDORA-2020-98f506e24c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-98f506e24c (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #7) > > It's a file. > > Indeed. In that case, the setuptools BuildRequires is superfluous. Removed > > Because this test is failing. > > I figured that much ;) Is there an upstream report about this? (To be clear: > This is not a blocker for the review.) It's on my todo list. But I need to investigate a little more before complaining. > I've noticed the following files are packaged in python3-ephem: > > /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/doc > /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/doc/CHANGELOG.rst > /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/doc/angle.rst > /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/doc/catalogs.rst > /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/doc/coordinates.rst > /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/doc/date.rst > /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/doc/examples.rst > /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/doc/index.rst > /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/doc/newton.rst > /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/doc/quick.rst > /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/doc/radec.rst > /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/doc/reference.rst > /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/doc/rise-set.rst > /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/doc/tutorial.rst > > > Are they used at runtime? If not, consider moving them to the doc package or > not packaging them at all. They are removed as there is a doc subpackage which contain the rendered rst file. FEDORA-2020-98f506e24c 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-2020-98f506e24c \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-98f506e24c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-2020-98f506e24c has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. |