Description: The binstruct library allows you to access binary data using a predefined structure. The binary data can be provided in any form that allows an indexed access to single bytes. This could for example be a memory-mapped file. The data structure itself is defined in way similar to Django database table definitions by declaring a new class with its fields. Koji Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16161866 Issues: No known issues. FAS-User: besser82 Urls: Spec URL: https://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/python-binstruct.spec SRPM URL: https://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/python-binstruct-1.0.1-0.1.fc26.src.rpm Thanks for review in advance!
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed === Issues === - Remove pre-built binstruct.egg-info/* files. ===== 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: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1387835-python-binstruct/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 4 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]: 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]: 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. [!]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2-binstruct , python3-binstruct [ ]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python2-binstruct-1.0.1-0.1.fc26.noarch.rpm python3-binstruct-1.0.1-0.1.fc26.noarch.rpm python-binstruct-1.0.1-0.1.fc26.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- python3-binstruct (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python2-binstruct (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-binstruct: python3-binstruct python3.5dist(binstruct) python3dist(binstruct) python2-binstruct: python-binstruct python2-binstruct python2.7dist(binstruct) python2dist(binstruct) Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/b/binstruct/binstruct-1.0.1.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6238b637c18e5889a1977d0c9c72b14cc3ca56b4ab7f0e9d4c40cad5bfbdd056 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6238b637c18e5889a1977d0c9c72b14cc3ca56b4ab7f0e9d4c40cad5bfbdd056 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1387835 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #1) > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > === Issues === > > - Remove pre-built binstruct.egg-info/* files. I don't think so… That is a requirement from an outdated guideline… See the recent discussion on fedora-devel-ml [1] about that topic… [1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/FOG5APDRQVNXR5ZOZZSVDNZVN4WURKG4/
(In reply to Björn "besser82" Esser from comment #2) > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #1) > > Package Review > > ============== > > > > Legend: > > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > > === Issues === > > > > - Remove pre-built binstruct.egg-info/* files. > > I don't think so… That is a requirement from an outdated guideline… See > the recent discussion on fedora-devel-ml [1] about that topic… > > > [1] > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/ > message/FOG5APDRQVNXR5ZOZZSVDNZVN4WURKG4/ mmh... This rule still does not look deprecated. >Any package that uses setuptools or distutils will build egg-info. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Eggs#When_to_Provide_Egg_Metadata >Do not distribute egg packages from upstream. In Fedora, all packages must be rebuilt from source. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Eggs#Upstream_Egg_Packages http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#No_inclusion_of_pre-built_binaries_or_libraries This package uses setuptools to build egg files.
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #3) > (In reply to Björn "besser82" Esser from comment #2) > > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #1) > > > Package Review > > > ============== > > > > > > Legend: > > > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > > > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > > > > === Issues === > > > > > > - Remove pre-built binstruct.egg-info/* files. > > > > I don't think so… That is a requirement from an outdated guideline… See > > the recent discussion on fedora-devel-ml [1] about that topic… > > > > > > [1] > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/ > > message/FOG5APDRQVNXR5ZOZZSVDNZVN4WURKG4/ > > mmh... > > This rule still does not look deprecated. > > >Any package that uses setuptools or distutils will build egg-info. > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > Python_Eggs#When_to_Provide_Egg_Metadata > > >Do not distribute egg packages from upstream. In Fedora, all packages must be rebuilt from source. > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Eggs#Upstream_Egg_Packages > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#No_inclusion_of_pre- > built_binaries_or_libraries > > This package uses setuptools to build egg files. Yes, that is true… *BUT* .egg-info is metadata, not pre-built binaries… There is a huge difference between the the plain-text-files shipped in .egg-info and a pre-built python-egg-package which is shipped as a .egg-file… Nothing is the cited guidelines says one needs to remove generated metadata…
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #1) > 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. > [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python > [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel > [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep In addition to my previous comment: It looks like f-r does checks for binary eggs in the sources, as you can see in it's output above… If it would be a requirement to even remove the .egg-info metadata, why does it explicitly say '*binary* eggs'? Even the common example spec-file [1] doesn't say it needs to be removed. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Packaging:Python#Example_common_spec_file
Stephen Gallagher clarified on fedora-devel-ml [1], that it is not mandatory to remove .egg-info. It is *recommended*, if one alters setup.py, which is not the case here. [1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/YHL6OEI664LJ6BRCS3EQTTK2C2773477/
Package approved.
Thank you for the quick review, Antonio! =)
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-binstruct
python-binstruct-1.0.1-1.fc24, python-bitstruct-3.3.1-1.fc24, python-evic-0.1-0.4.git20160814.f916017.fc24, python-hidapi-0.7.99.post19-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 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-2016-7e34683045
python-binstruct-1.0.1-1.fc25, python-bitstruct-3.3.1-1.fc25, python-evic-0.1-0.4.git20160814.f916017.fc25, python-hidapi-0.7.99.post19-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-2016-22c2b6eaab
python-binstruct-1.0.1-1.fc24, python-bitstruct-3.3.1-1.fc24, python-evic-0.1-0.4.git20160814.f916017.fc24, python-hidapi-0.7.99.post20-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 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-2016-7e34683045
python-binstruct-1.0.1-1.fc25, python-bitstruct-3.3.1-1.fc25, python-evic-0.1-0.4.git20160814.f916017.fc25, python-hidapi-0.7.99.post19-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
python-binstruct-1.0.1-1.fc24, python-bitstruct-3.3.1-1.fc24, python-evic-0.1-0.4.git20160814.f916017.fc24, python-hidapi-0.7.99.post20-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.