Bug 1926700
Summary: | Review Request: python-batalgorithm - Implementation of Bat Algorithm in Python | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Iztok Fister Jr. <iztok> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | package-review, sanjay.ankur |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | sanjay.ankur:
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: | 2021-02-27 22:18:03 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: | 1276941 |
Description
Iztok Fister Jr.
2021-02-09 10:00:44 UTC
Looks pretty good. No blockers. XXX APPROVED XXX A few suggestions to consider before the import: - Should we improve the description/summary to say "Bat global optimisation algorithm" or something of the sort? That'll make it easier for users to search, for example with "sudo dnf search optimisation". Otherwise unless they know of this package, they will not be able to find it. - the package isn't tagged on GitHub, but it's released on Pypi: https://pypi.org/project/BatAlgorithm/ Since you are using the Git tarball, it'll be good to ask upstream to also tag on GitHub so that it's clear what pypi release corresponds to what Git commit. - it's suggested to use lowercase naming: python-batalgorithm, since it'll make it easier for users to install: python3-batalgorithm vs python3-BatAlgorithm. This is only suggested in the the guidelines, so I'll leave this for you to decide: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_general_naming Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. [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", "Expat License". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/asinha/dump/fedora- reviews/1926700-python-BatAlgorithm/licensecheck.txt [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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: [x]: 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. ^ Not tested this out [x]: Latest version is packaged. [-]: 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. [-]: 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. [-]: %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-BatAlgorithm-0.3.1-1.fc34.noarch.rpm python-BatAlgorithm-0.3.1-1.fc34.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/buma/BatAlgorithm/tarball/master/buma-BatAlgorithm-d913e9d.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 15de008451739d29ecf8089f550f4c96c45ae06bc68e1e6821e267a5ef4ec176 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 15de008451739d29ecf8089f550f4c96c45ae06bc68e1e6821e267a5ef4ec176 Requires -------- python3-BatAlgorithm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-BatAlgorithm: python-BatAlgorithm python3-BatAlgorithm python3.9-BatAlgorithm python3.9dist(batalgorithm) python3dist(batalgorithm) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1926700 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: Java, fonts, Haskell, C/C++, PHP, Ocaml, R, SugarActivity, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Hi Ankur, thank you very much for great ideas. I totally agree with renaming this package. Description of this package will also be updated in SPEC file (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-batalgorithm FEDORA-2021-a44dfbf338 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-a44dfbf338 FEDORA-2021-373e8c7490 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-373e8c7490 FEDORA-2021-373e8c7490 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-373e8c7490` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-373e8c7490 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-EPEL-2021-dfc73195c0 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-2021-dfc73195c0 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-2021-a44dfbf338 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-a44dfbf338` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-a44dfbf338 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-2021-373e8c7490 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. FEDORA-2021-a44dfbf338 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. FEDORA-EPEL-2021-dfc73195c0 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. |