Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-xxhash.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-xxhash-2.0.2-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: xxhash is a Python binding for the xxHash library by Yann Collet. Fedora Account System Username: music Koji scratch builds: F36: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=75514556 F35: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=75514824 F34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=75515073 F33: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=75515116 This is a missing dependency for the “easy” and “all” extras of https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-trimesh; @neuro-sig will be granted commit privileges on this package as well.
Despite being a compiled extension, this is a nearly-trivial package under the new (pyproject-rpm-macros) Python packaging guidelines.
After import, or if I post an updated SRPM to address any feedback, I plan to drop > BuildRequires: pyproject-rpm-macros as no longer necessary, as well as (after verifying with “rpm -qL -p …” that pyproject-rpm-macros finds the license file) removing > %license LICENSE but I didn’t take the time to make a new submission for those changes alone.
XXX Looks good XXX Approved XXX (please make the tweaks you've noted already before import) Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. ^ autochangelog: false alarm ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [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]: 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 2-Clause License". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/asinha/dump/fedora-reviews/2003374-python- xxhash/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: 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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 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]: 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]: 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]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-xxhash [x]: Package functions as described. ^ via tests [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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-xxhash: /usr/lib64/python3.10/site-packages/xxhash/_xxhash.cpython-310-x86_64-linux-gnu.so ^ This is fine. Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/x/xxhash/xxhash-2.0.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b7bead8cf6210eadf9cecf356e17af794f57c0939a3d420a00d87ea652f87b49 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b7bead8cf6210eadf9cecf356e17af794f57c0939a3d420a00d87ea652f87b49 Requires -------- python3-xxhash (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libxxhash.so.0()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) python-xxhash-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-xxhash: python-xxhash python3-xxhash python3-xxhash(x86-64) python3.10-xxhash python3.10dist(xxhash) python3dist(xxhash) python-xxhash-debugsource: python-xxhash-debugsource python-xxhash-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2003374 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, Haskell, Java, R, PHP, Perl, SugarActivity, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks for the review!
Note: ran rpmlint manually: $ rpmlint *rpm ../srpm-unpacked/* ============================================================= rpmlint session starts ============================================================= rpmlint: 2.1.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 4 python-xxhash.spec:70: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog python-xxhash.spec:70: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog ============================== 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 2.5 s = That's all fine.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-xxhash
FEDORA-2021-9748f6d953 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-9748f6d953
FEDORA-2021-92f87926e4 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-92f87926e4
FEDORA-2021-fd2f6e1866 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-fd2f6e1866
FEDORA-2021-9748f6d953 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-9748f6d953 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-9748f6d953 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-8291f12b2b has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-8291f12b2b
FEDORA-2021-92f87926e4 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-92f87926e4 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-92f87926e4 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-8291f12b2b has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-8291f12b2b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-fd2f6e1866 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-fd2f6e1866 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-fd2f6e1866 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-9748f6d953 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-92f87926e4 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-fd2f6e1866 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-8291f12b2b has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.