Spec URL: https://major.fedorapeople.org/python-editdistance/python-editdistance.spec SRPM URL: https://major.fedorapeople.org/python-editdistance/python-editdistance-0.5.3-1.fc31.src.rpm Description: This library implements the Levenshtein distance with C++ and Cython. Fedora Account System Username: major rpmlint output: 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=38799606
Splitting out the -devel subpackages seems bogus. The .so file is just the python module. Also, your -devel package is not installable. Merge the -devel package back into the python3- package. Those .h files can be %excluded, they are not used at runtime.
Aniket, please block "fedora-neuro" for all NeuroFedora related bugs---also helps us keep track of our stuff.
I forgot to add: > %{__python3} setup.py test > nosetests test Why two calls? This second line could run with the wrong python versions on F<32.
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #1) > Splitting out the -devel subpackages seems bogus. The .so file is just the > python module. > Also, your -devel package is not installable. > > Merge the -devel package back into the python3- package. > Those .h files can be %excluded, they are not used at runtime. Yeah... I did that because of the header file warning. I was not sure if they are used during the runtime. I'll exclude them if that is the case. (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #3) > I forgot to add: > > %{__python3} setup.py test > > nosetests test > > Why two calls? This second line could run with the wrong python versions on > F<32. %{__python3} setup.py test copies some the python module (.so) file to the source directory. It also doesn't run the tests. If I don't run this, the tests using nose fails. Hence I had added the two statements. Sure, you are right. I should use nosetests-3 to run the test.
(In reply to Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) from comment #2) > Aniket, please block "fedora-neuro" for all NeuroFedora related bugs---also > helps us keep track of our stuff. What do you mean by "blocking fedora-neuro"? Is it adding the neuro sig to the cc-list, then I had done that already.
(In reply to Aniket Pradhan from comment #5) > (In reply to Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) from comment #2) > > Aniket, please block "fedora-neuro" for all NeuroFedora related bugs---also > > helps us keep track of our stuff. > > What do you mean by "blocking fedora-neuro"? Is it adding the neuro sig to > the cc-list, then I had done that already. No worries, I got what you were referring to. :P
(In reply to Aniket Pradhan from comment #4) > %{__python3} setup.py test copies some the python module (.so) file to the > source directory. You don't usually need to do that; set PYTHONPATH and/or PATH to point to the %{buildroot} correctly, and it should work with the one you just built.
Thanks a lot, Elliott! I set the PATH to point to %{buildroot}%{python3_sitearch} where the package is installed, and the tests now pass successfully [1]. I also shifted from nose to pytest. I hope there are no problems now. :D [1]: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=38841256 P.S. I have updated the spec and the SRPM on the above-mentioned URLs.
Summary is too long; "in Python" is redundant since it's in the package name, and you can drop "A ". The description says C++ and Cython, but you don't BR python3-Cython, and rebuild Cython sources, which is required: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_packages_using_cython You must own %{python3_sitearch}/%{pypi_name} and %{python3_sitearch}/%{pypi_name}/__pycache__ Make sure to update both spec and srpm. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: 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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/python3.8/site- packages/editdistance/__pycache__, /usr/lib64/python3.8/site- packages/editdistance [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/python3.8/site- packages/editdistance, /usr/lib64/python3.8/site- packages/editdistance/__pycache__ [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. [x]: 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. [?]: 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. [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 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]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [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]: 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 ===== 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 python3-editdistance [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: 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. [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-editdistance-0.5.3-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm python-editdistance-debugsource-0.5.3-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm python-editdistance-0.5.3-1.fc32.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-editdistance.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/aflc/editdistance <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> python-editdistance-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/aflc/editdistance <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-editdistance: /usr/lib64/python3.8/site-packages/editdistance/bycython.cpython-38-x86_64-linux-gnu.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/aflc/editdistance/archive/v0.5.3/editdistance-0.5.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c8dc7c32286210b8a2c94d5b125fc99c9acccb68ab891a920bf1901a301d6e82 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c8dc7c32286210b8a2c94d5b125fc99c9acccb68ab891a920bf1901a301d6e82 Requires -------- python3-editdistance (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) python-editdistance-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-editdistance: python-editdistance python3-editdistance python3-editdistance(x86-64) python3.8dist(editdistance) python3dist(editdistance) python-editdistance-debugsource: python-editdistance-debugsource python-editdistance-debugsource(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/elliott/rpmbuild/review/1769297-python-editdistance/srpm/python-editdistance.spec 2019-11-09 05:43:35.196973026 -0500 +++ /home/elliott/rpmbuild/review/1769297-python-editdistance/srpm-unpacked/python-editdistance.spec 2019-11-08 09:26:12.000000000 -0500 @@ -65,4 +65,4 @@ %changelog -* Fri Nov 8 2019 Aniket Pradhan <major AT fedoraproject DOT org> - 0.5.3-1 +* Wed Nov 6 2019 Aniket Pradhan <major AT fedoraproject DOT org> - 0.5.3-1 - Initial build Generated by fedora-review 0.7.3 (44b83c7) last change: 2019-09-18 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1769297 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-{{ target_arch }} Active plugins: C/C++, Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, Haskell, R, SugarActivity, Java, Perl, Ocaml, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thank you for the review, Elliot. I have made the requested changes and have updated the source files (spec and srpm) in the fedorapeople workspace. The links to the files are as follows: spec: https://major.fedorapeople.org/python-editdistance/python-editdistance.spec srpm: https://major.fedorapeople.org/python-editdistance/python-editdistance-0.5.3-1.fc31.src.rpm The links are the same as the ones posted above. I am although unsure why the difference in the URL is coming up. I have generated the srpm using `rpmbuild -bs python-editdistance.spec`. I don't think it should be any different from the one created during the build procedure.
> find %{pypi_name}/ -name "*.c" -print -delete This is not quite right, because the files are named *.cpp.
Hello Elliott. I had done that in a hurry :P Anyways, I can see that only the file bypython.cpp is being generated through Cython, and it is not happening through setup.py (it is building editdistance.bycython through setup.py. So, I had to manually run `cythonize ...` in order to compile the cpp file. Also, _editdistance.cpp is not being generated through Cython, hence there is no point deleting it. I have updated the spec and the srpm in the above mentioned urls.
Bumping the review. I hope spec and the srpm files are fine.
Approved. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: 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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [x]: 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. [?]: 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. [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]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [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 ===== 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 python3-editdistance [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: 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. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-editdistance-0.5.3-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm python-editdistance-debugsource-0.5.3-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm python-editdistance-0.5.3-1.fc32.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-editdistance.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/aflc/editdistance <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> python-editdistance-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/aflc/editdistance <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-editdistance: /usr/lib64/python3.8/site-packages/editdistance/bycython.cpython-38-x86_64-linux-gnu.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/aflc/editdistance/archive/v0.5.3/editdistance-0.5.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c8dc7c32286210b8a2c94d5b125fc99c9acccb68ab891a920bf1901a301d6e82 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c8dc7c32286210b8a2c94d5b125fc99c9acccb68ab891a920bf1901a301d6e82 Requires -------- python3-editdistance (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) python-editdistance-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-editdistance: python-editdistance python3-editdistance python3-editdistance(x86-64) python3.8dist(editdistance) python3dist(editdistance) python-editdistance-debugsource: python-editdistance-debugsource python-editdistance-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.3 (44b83c7) last change: 2019-09-18 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1769297 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-{{ target_arch }} Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: fonts, Ocaml, SugarActivity, PHP, R, Haskell, Perl, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
*** Bug 1771215 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-editdistance
FEDORA-2019-297ad7f39c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-297ad7f39c
python-editdistance-0.5.3-1.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-2019-6f8dee4c59
python-editdistance-0.5.3-1.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-2019-297ad7f39c
python-editdistance-0.5.3-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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-2019-67c38ce04a
python-editdistance-0.5.3-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
python-editdistance-0.5.3-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.