Spec URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/pythran.spec SRPM URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/pythran-0.9.2-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: Pythran is an ahead of time compiler for a subset of the Python language, with a focus on scientific computing. It takes a Python module annotated with a few interface description and turns it into a native Python module with the same interface, but (hopefully) faster. It is meant to efficiently compile scientific programs, and takes advantage of multi-cores and SIMD instruction units. Fedora Account System Username: churchyard
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.