Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-colorcet.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-colorcet-2.0.6-1.20211110git1dad8be.fc35.src.rpm Description: Colorcet is a collection of perceptually uniform colormaps for use with Python plotting programs like bokeh, matplotlib, holoviews, and datashader based on the set of perceptually uniform colormaps created by Peter Kovesi at the Center for Exploration Targeting. Fedora Account System Username: music COPR builds for all current releases: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/music/colorcet/build/2948644/ This package depends on python-param (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018847) and python-pyct (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2019157). There are several ways to review it while one or more of those packages is still under review. One of them looks like this: 1. Download the latest SRPMs from https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018847 and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2019157. 2. mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --rebuild python-param-*.src.rpm 3. mkdir deps 4. cp /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/*.noarch.rpm deps/ 5. mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -i deps/*.rpm 6. mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --rebuild python-pyct-*.src.rpm --no-clean 7. cp /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/*.noarch.rpm deps/ 8. fedora-review -b ${THIS_BUG_NUMBER} -L deps
For context, some reverse dependencies: https://www.wheelodex.org/projects/colorcet/rdepends/
Dependencies are now packaged in Rawhide, with updates pending for F35 and F34. Koji scratch build: F36: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=79197897
Overall ok, only issues I see - License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. => No license file is installed below /usr/share/licenses, there is the comment "pyproject-rpm-macros handles LICENSE.txt", but I only see the license appearing below /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/colorcet-2.0.6.dist-info/LICENSE.txt Don't see anything in the packaging guidelines regarding whether is allowed, but I believe the license must be below /usr/share/licenses? - rpmlint: evaluate if this needs to be addressed python3-colorcet.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/colorcet/.version Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. ===== 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. [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: 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]: 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: [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: Package functions as described. [?]: 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. [-]: 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- python3-colorcet.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/colorcet/.version Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/holoviz/colorcet/archive/1dad8beaf42b1f2f21cc1fb56f11fca4872d3f91/colorcet-1dad8beaf42b1f2f21cc1fb56f11fca4872d3f91.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9048ecfe2da675bf9e08ec37f38813e9f8823a97fa5f85bd8454c1e1ff2e7466 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9048ecfe2da675bf9e08ec37f38813e9f8823a97fa5f85bd8454c1e1ff2e7466 Requires -------- python3-colorcet (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.10dist(param) python3.10dist(pyct) python3-colorcet+examples (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-colorcet python3.10dist(bokeh) python3.10dist(matplotlib) python3.10dist(numpy) Provides -------- python3-colorcet: python-colorcet python3-colorcet python3.10-colorcet python3.10dist(colorcet) python3dist(colorcet) python3-colorcet+examples: python-colorcet+examples python3-colorcet+examples python3.10-colorcet+examples python3.10dist(colorcet[examples]) python3dist(colorcet[examples]) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2022153 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: Ruby, fonts, C/C++, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, PHP, Java, R, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #3) > Overall ok, only issues I see > > - License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > => No license file is installed below /usr/share/licenses, there is the > comment "pyproject-rpm-macros handles LICENSE.txt", but I only see the > license appearing below > > /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/colorcet-2.0.6.dist-info/LICENSE.txt > > Don't see anything in the packaging guidelines regarding whether is allowed, > but I believe the license must be below /usr/share/licenses? While I believe the support in pyproject-rpm-macros is intended to replace manual license file marking/installation, I don’t object to installing a duplicate license file for now. I’ve raised the issue on the packaging mailing list to ask for additional input: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/CQX3A7LKXYODXDSR2KZOBNM2CRNN2AYS/ > - rpmlint: evaluate if this needs to be addressed > python3-colorcet.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir > /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/colorcet/.version This is an unusual case. Upstream has chosen to store the canonical copy of the version number in a JSON data file named .version. It needs to be present when setup.py is called in order for the package metadata to contain the correct version number. It’s also intended to be installed, in order to load the value of __version__ at import time. This is a design shared with, and implemented in, the dependencies python-pyct and python-param. While verifying this, I found that this version of colorcet has a bug where __version__ is simply and incorrectly '1.0.0', but this is fixed in the recently-released colorcet 3.0.0 and .version is indeed required at import time. ----- I will follow up with a submission in which colorcet is updated to 3.0.0 and the additional license file is added.
Updated spec: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20211223/python-colorcet.spec Updated SRPM: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20211223/python-colorcet-3.0.0-1.20211224git39af94a.fc35.src.rpm
All good, approved!
As a follow-up to the %license question, Miro Hrončok responded to my query on the packaging mailing list[1] agreeing that license files do not have to be installed in /usr/share/licenses, referencing an earlier thread on the same list[2] in which Jason L Tibbits III said he knew of no such requirement. Since Miro and Jason are both current FPC members, I think this is a reasonably conclusive answer to the question. [1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/CQX3A7LKXYODXDSR2KZOBNM2CRNN2AYS/ [2] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/OHNVT5S4ZPOB56KAYNCWZOC6W2WAV54C/
Thanks for the review! Repository requested.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-colorcet
FEDORA-2021-17b971b866 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-17b971b866
FEDORA-2021-17b971b866 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-ebee38b14b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-ebee38b14b
FEDORA-2021-9b7b5bfdc2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-9b7b5bfdc2
FEDORA-2021-9b7b5bfdc2 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-2021-9b7b5bfdc2 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-9b7b5bfdc2 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-ebee38b14b 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-ebee38b14b \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-ebee38b14b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-9b7b5bfdc2 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-ebee38b14b has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.