Bug 2016597 - Review Request: python-opensearch-py - Python low-level client for OpenSearch
Summary: Review Request: python-opensearch-py - Python low-level client for OpenSearch
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Germano Massullo (Thetra)
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 2038828
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2021-10-22 07:21 UTC by Steve Traylen
Modified: 2022-02-12 12:25 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2022-02-11 06:02:50 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
germano.massullo: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)
errors in fedora-review (31.69 KB, text/plain)
2022-01-05 13:19 UTC, Germano Massullo (Thetra)
no flags Details

Description Steve Traylen 2021-10-22 07:21:23 UTC
Spec URL: https://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python-opensearch-py/python-opensearch-py-1.0.0-1.fc34.src.rpm
SRPM URL: https://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python-opensearch-py/python-opensearch-py.spec
Description:
opensearch-py is a community-driven, open source OpenSearch client
licensed under the Apache v2.0 License.
For more information, see opensearch.org.


Fedora Account System Username: stevetraylen

Comment 1 Germano Massullo (Thetra) 2021-12-02 15:06:52 UTC
1) spec file is missing         BuildRequires:  python3-setuptools
2) changelog is not compliant to Fedora guidelines https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#changelogs

Comment 2 Steve Traylen 2021-12-09 15:30:56 UTC
> 1) spec file is missing         BuildRequires:  python3-setuptools

Indeed, that changed between review and now.

>2) changelog is not compliant to Fedora guidelines https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#changelogs

:-)

Spec URL: https://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python-opensearch-py/python-opensearch-py-1.0.0-2.fc34.src.rpm
SRPM URL: https://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python-opensearch-py/python-opensearch-py.spec

Comment 3 Germano Massullo (Thetra) 2021-12-29 11:43:11 UTC
(In reply to Steve Traylen from comment #2)
> > 1) spec file is missing         BuildRequires:  python3-setuptools
> 
> Indeed, that changed between review and now.
> 
> >2) changelog is not compliant to Fedora guidelines https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#changelogs
> 
> :-)
> 
> Spec URL:
> https://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python-opensearch-py/python-opensearch-py-1.0.
> 0-2.fc34.src.rpm
> SRPM URL:
> https://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python-opensearch-py/python-opensearch-py.spec

Hello, the two files are not reachable

Comment 5 Germano Massullo (Thetra) 2022-01-05 13:19:10 UTC
Created attachment 1849027 [details]
errors in fedora-review

I am currently trying to figure out if the following errors are a bug of fedora-review or not

Comment 6 Steve Traylen 2022-01-21 12:23:02 UTC
Hi,

I don't really see this as blocked by the fedora-review crash?

Steve.

Comment 8 Steve Traylen 2022-02-09 08:31:14 UTC
For me fedora-review runs fine against this bug:

Comment 9 Germano Massullo (Thetra) 2022-02-09 13:54:18 UTC
Today I am trying to fix the fedora-review problem once for all

Comment 10 Germano Massullo (Thetra) 2022-02-09 15:05:41 UTC
PACKAGE APPROVED

Package Review
==============

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



===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0",
     "Apache License 2.0". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/user/review/python-opensearch-
     py/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[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: 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]: 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]: 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]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: 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).


Rpmlint
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/o/opensearch-py/opensearch-py-1.0.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : fa952836cabfa1b2fb05f852edc1a373342494345e89fd52b7124daf4d296bb4
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fa952836cabfa1b2fb05f852edc1a373342494345e89fd52b7124daf4d296bb4


Requires
--------
python3-opensearch-py (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (python3.10dist(urllib3) < 2~~ with python3.10dist(urllib3) >= 1.21.1)
    python(abi)
    python3.10dist(certifi)



Provides
--------
python3-opensearch-py:
    python-opensearch-py
    python3-opensearch-py
    python3.10-opensearch-py
    python3.10dist(opensearch-py)
    python3dist(opensearch-py)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -rn python-opensearch-py-1.0.0-3.fc36.src.rpm -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: PHP, R, Ocaml, Perl, SugarActivity, fonts, Java, Haskell, C/C++
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comment 11 Gwyn Ciesla 2022-02-10 17:18:12 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-opensearch-py

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2022-02-11 06:01:12 UTC
FEDORA-2022-d105fda42e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-d105fda42e

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2022-02-11 06:03:24 UTC
FEDORA-2022-d105fda42e has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2022-02-12 12:22:10 UTC
FEDORA-2022-30b59a2a29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-30b59a2a29

Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2022-02-12 12:25:00 UTC
FEDORA-2022-30b59a2a29 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository.
If problem still persists, 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.