Bug 1288610 - Review Request: python-lazy-object-proxy - A fast and thorough lazy object proxy
Summary: Review Request: python-lazy-object-proxy - A fast and thorough lazy object proxy
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: David Shea
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2015-12-04 17:58 UTC by Brian Lane
Modified: 2018-12-06 14:52 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

(edit)
Clone Of:
(edit)
Last Closed: 2018-12-06 14:52:53 UTC
dshea: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Brian Lane 2015-12-04 17:58:00 UTC
Spec URL: https://bcl.fedorapeople.org/python-lazy-object-proxy/python-lazy-object-proxy.spec
SRPM URL: https://bcl.fedorapeople.org/python-lazy-object-proxy/python-lazy-object-proxy-1.2.1-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: A fast and thorough lazy object proxy
Fedora Account System Username: bcl

This new package is a requirement for the update to pylint-1.5.1 and python-astroid-1.4.3

Comment 1 David Shea 2015-12-04 18:22:28 UTC
fedora-review is taking its sweet time, so a couple of comments while that's running:

- might as well just remove %check. The tests aren't hooked up via setup.py, and actually running them requires two more packages not in fedora.

- Any reason you went with the github-generated tarball instead of the sdist from https://pypi.python.org/pypi/lazy-object-proxy ?  The MANIFEST has everything it's supposed to have, so the only differences in content are that pypi does not have .gitignore, does have PKG-INFO, and does have a .egg-info directory in src/ (which I think is supposed to be removed in %prep, though the packaging guidelines don't say that anymore for some reason). But anyway, the pypi tarball has a less weird name.

Comment 2 Brian Lane 2015-12-04 18:47:13 UTC
(In reply to David Shea from comment #1)
> fedora-review is taking its sweet time, so a couple of comments while that's
> running:
> 
> - might as well just remove %check. The tests aren't hooked up via setup.py,
> and actually running them requires two more packages not in fedora.
> 

Ah, right, they're using tox instead.

> - Any reason you went with the github-generated tarball instead of the sdist
> from https://pypi.python.org/pypi/lazy-object-proxy ?  The MANIFEST has
> everything it's supposed to have, so the only differences in content are
> that pypi does not have .gitignore, does have PKG-INFO, and does have a
> .egg-info directory in src/ (which I think is supposed to be removed in
> %prep, though the packaging guidelines don't say that anymore for some
> reason). But anyway, the pypi tarball has a less weird name.

I tend to prefer the github files to pypi because they're updated more often than pypi.

Comment 3 David Shea 2015-12-04 19:27:08 UTC
Ok here comes some text:

Issues:
=======
- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines

This is because fedora-review tried to install the -debuginfo package twice for some reason. It installs fine.

- Permissions on files are set properly.
  Note: See rpmlint output
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions

comments and rpmlint output below.

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

C/C++:
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: 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]: 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: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 38 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/dshea/review-python-
     lazy-object-proxy/licensecheck.txt

(the LICENSE file, which is BSD, applies to all of those "unknown" licensed files, so it's fine)

[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.

(I mean, I assume it does, it's using the right macros so if it doesn't then not your problem)

[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]: 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.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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]: 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.
[-]: 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]: 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.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2
     -lazy-object-proxy , python3-lazy-object-proxy , python-lazy-object-
     proxy-debuginfo

(I don't even know where fedora-review got this idea but it doesn't make sense)

[x]: 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.

(I mean, I assume it does)

[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.

(see comment 1)

[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files. 
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag 
[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]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: Mock build failed
     See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint

(see below)

[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.

and here's the rpmlint output:

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python2-lazy-object-proxy-1.2.1-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm
          python3-lazy-object-proxy-1.2.1-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm
          python-lazy-object-proxy-debuginfo-1.2.1-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm
          python-lazy-object-proxy-1.2.1-1.fc24.src.rpm
python2-lazy-object-proxy.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/lazy_object_proxy/cext.so 775
python3-lazy-object-proxy.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python3.5/site-packages/lazy_object_proxy/cext.cpython-35m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so 775
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings.

which is complaining about the .so files being installed as 0775 instead of 0755. I don't know *how* they got way, exactly, since we don't do anything special in other packages that compile C modules via setup.py (e.g., pyparted). I was willing to just assume that it was fedora-review doing something weird while driving mock, but you said in IRC you'd fix it with %attr so that sounds fine.

APPROVED.

Comment 4 David Shea 2015-12-04 19:32:55 UTC
For the ones I left blank because I did a half-assed job of copying and pasting the second time after bugzilla ate my first comment:

- no, there's no kernel modules
- or static executables
- unversioned .so files in non-standard locations is how Python binary modules work
- and the package follows all of the directives within the 26 pages of the Fedora Packaging Guidelines plus the 7 pages of the Python appendix plus all of the other linked pages, probably.

Comment 5 Brian Lane 2015-12-04 21:17:17 UTC
Spec URL: https://bcl.fedorapeople.org/python-lazy-object-proxy/python-lazy-object-proxy.spec
SRPM URL: https://bcl.fedorapeople.org/python-lazy-object-proxy/python-lazy-object-proxy-1.2.1-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: A fast and thorough lazy object proxy
Fedora Account System Username: bcl

Updated with %attr

Comment 6 Gwyn Ciesla 2015-12-04 21:29:49 UTC
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/python-lazy-object-proxy

Comment 7 Petr Viktorin 2018-12-06 14:52:53 UTC
This is in Fedora for a while. Let me close the review request.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.