Bug 1741623 (python-stdlib-list) - Review Request: python-stdlib-list - A list of Python Standard Libraries
Summary: Review Request: python-stdlib-list - A list of Python Standard Libraries
Alias: python-stdlib-list
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
Blocks: pydeps, python-pydeps
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2019-08-15 15:40 UTC by Luis Bazan
Modified: 2019-11-21 01:24 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2019-08-29 22:05:48 UTC
Type: Bug
sanjay.ankur: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Luis Bazan 2019-08-15 15:40:18 UTC
Spec URL: https://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-stdlib-list.spec
SRPM URL: https://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-stdlib-list-0.5.0-1.fc30.src.rpm

Python Standard Library List -This package includes lists of all of the
standard libraries for Python 2.6, 2.7, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6, along with
the code for scraping the official Python docs to get said lists.Listing the
modules in the standard library? Wait, why on Earth would you care about that?!
Because knowing whether or not a module is part of the standard library will
come in...


Comment 1 Luis Bazan 2019-08-15 15:44:07 UTC
FAS: lbazan

Comment 2 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2019-08-15 16:16:15 UTC

Minor notes for tweaks before import:

- In summary, I would remove the (...) part, since I'm sure upstream will
  update the list to 3.7 at some point, and our summary will become outdated.
  Same for the description: I would remove the versions of Python listed there.

- You could define a _description macro and use that for the two descriptions.

- For source, you can simply use %pypi_source

- Please add a comment where you've declared the Requires that these are not
  clearly listed and therefore not picked up by the dep generator.

Package Review

[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/

^ Seems to be a fedora-review issue. The packages look fine.

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

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 23 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/asinha/dump/fedora-
[-]: 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
[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.
[-]: 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 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]: 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
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
[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 =====

[-]: 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 checked, but looks OK.

[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
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Upstream has no tests.

[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[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
[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 =====

[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Installation errors
INFO: mock.py version 1.4.17 starting (python version = 3.7.4)...
Start: init plugins
INFO: selinux disabled
Finish: init plugins
Start: run
Start: chroot init
INFO: calling preinit hooks
INFO: enabled root cache
INFO: enabled dnf cache
Start: cleaning dnf metadata
Finish: cleaning dnf metadata
INFO: enabled HW Info plugin
Mock Version: 1.4.17
INFO: Mock Version: 1.4.17
Finish: chroot init
INFO: installing package(s): /home/asinha/dump/fedora-review/1741623-python-stdlib-list/results/python3-stdlib-list-0.5.0-1.fc31.noarch.rpm
ERROR: Command failed: 
 # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 31 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk install /home/asinha/dump/fedora-review/1741623-python-stdlib-list/results/python3-stdlib-list-0.5.0-1.fc31.noarch.rpm

^ Not sure what's causing this, but I've run rpmlint on the generated rpms and
it looks OK:

$ ls
build.log  hw_info.log  installed_pkgs.log python3-stdlib-list-0.5.0-1.fc31.noarch.rpm python-stdlib-list-0.5.0-1.fc31.src.rpm  root.log  state.log
$ rpmlint ./*rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Checking: python3-stdlib-list-0.5.0-1.fc31.noarch.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Source checksums
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/s/stdlib-list/stdlib-list-0.5.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 5311a95812ebce3c5ad0b1f6ded798ce6f945d157075d166a5426c2da75a6625
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5311a95812ebce3c5ad0b1f6ded798ce6f945d157075d166a5426c2da75a6625

python3-stdlib-list (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


Generated by fedora-review 0.7.2 (65d36bb) last change: 2019-04-09
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1741623
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python
Disabled plugins: PHP, SugarActivity, Java, fonts, Ocaml, Haskell, C/C++, R, Perl

Comment 3 Gwyn Ciesla 2019-08-15 17:24:47 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-stdlib-list

Comment 4 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 2019-08-16 06:51:39 UTC
Something is wrong with the description. It ends mid-sentence.

Comment 5 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2019-08-16 08:16:07 UTC
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #4)
> Something is wrong with the description. It ends mid-sentence.


Luis, looks like you forgot to implement the changes to the spec before importing it. Please do so and re-build for all releases.

Comment 6 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2019-08-16 08:18:16 UTC
Ah, when I mentioned editing the summary and description, I missed the incomplete description bit. Thanks Zbigniew. Luis, please update this too.

Comment 7 Luis Bazan 2019-08-21 14:46:06 UTC
Updated ready!


Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2019-08-21 14:47:02 UTC
FEDORA-2019-af0d77dc1a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-af0d77dc1a

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2019-08-29 22:05:48 UTC
python-stdlib-list-0.5.0-2.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2019-11-11 15:34:58 UTC
FEDORA-2019-85490d4fe5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-85490d4fe5

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2019-11-13 04:56:31 UTC
python-stdlib-list-0.5.0-5.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-2019-85490d4fe5

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2019-11-21 01:24:08 UTC
python-stdlib-list-0.5.0-5.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

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