Bug 2040816 - Review Request: python-ezdxf - Create/manipulate DXF drawings
Summary: Review Request: python-ezdxf - Create/manipulate DXF drawings
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Major Hayden 🤠
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2022-01-14 18:29 UTC by Ben Beasley
Modified: 2022-03-26 15:09 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2022-03-03 15:39:57 UTC
Type: ---
mhayden: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Ben Beasley 2022-01-14 18:29:37 UTC
Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-ezdxf.spec
SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-ezdxf-0.17.2-1.fc35.src.rpm
Description:

A Python package to create and modify DXF drawings, independent of the DXF
version. You can open/save every DXF file without losing any content (except
comments). Unknown tags in the DXF file will be ignored but preserved for
saving. With this behavior it is possible to open also DXF drawings that
contains data from 3rd party applications.

Fedora Account System Username: music

Koji scratch builds:

F36: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=81246697
F35: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=81246829
F34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=81246701

This provides the “ezdxf” command-line tool, and enables running more tests in python-trimesh.

Comment 1 Major Hayden 🤠 2022-03-02 19:50:09 UTC
Package Review
==============

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


Issues:
=======
- Dist tag is present.

✅ Approved. This one looks like it took a lot of work. 👀

===== 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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
     Note: Using prebuilt packages
[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: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* MIT
     License". 610 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/python-
     ezdxf/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.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
     Note: Macros in: python3-ezdxf (description)
[-]: 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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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 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]: 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:
[!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: 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-ezdxf
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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]: 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.


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


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


Unversioned so-files
--------------------
python3-ezdxf: /usr/lib64/python3.10/site-packages/ezdxf/acc/bezier3p.cpython-310-x86_64-linux-gnu.so
python3-ezdxf: /usr/lib64/python3.10/site-packages/ezdxf/acc/bezier4p.cpython-310-x86_64-linux-gnu.so
python3-ezdxf: /usr/lib64/python3.10/site-packages/ezdxf/acc/bspline.cpython-310-x86_64-linux-gnu.so
python3-ezdxf: /usr/lib64/python3.10/site-packages/ezdxf/acc/construct.cpython-310-x86_64-linux-gnu.so
python3-ezdxf: /usr/lib64/python3.10/site-packages/ezdxf/acc/matrix44.cpython-310-x86_64-linux-gnu.so
python3-ezdxf: /usr/lib64/python3.10/site-packages/ezdxf/acc/vector.cpython-310-x86_64-linux-gnu.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/mozman/ezdxf/archive/v0.17.2/ezdxf-0.17.2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : d134e5339d7f73b8b48f6a11e63624b201abae2a4767d54c43181132bb2f3e27
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d134e5339d7f73b8b48f6a11e63624b201abae2a4767d54c43181132bb2f3e27


Requires
--------
python3-ezdxf (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    font(liberationmono)
    font(liberationsans)
    font(liberationsansnarrow)
    font(liberationserif)
    font(opensans)
    font(opensansextrabold)
    font(opensanslight)
    font(opensanssemibold)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    python(abi)
    python3.10dist(pyparsing)
    python3.10dist(typing-extensions)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

python-ezdxf-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

python-ezdxf-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
python3-ezdxf:
    python-ezdxf
    python3-ezdxf
    python3-ezdxf(x86-64)
    python3.10-ezdxf
    python3.10dist(ezdxf)
    python3dist(ezdxf)

python-ezdxf-doc:
    python-ezdxf-doc

python-ezdxf-debugsource:
    python-ezdxf-debugsource
    python-ezdxf-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name python-ezdxf --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++, Python
Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, Perl, R, fonts, Ocaml, PHP, Haskell
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comment 2 Ben Beasley 2022-03-03 12:34:57 UTC
Thank you for the review! Repository requested.

Comment 3 Gwyn Ciesla 2022-03-03 15:07:47 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-ezdxf

Comment 4 Fedora Update System 2022-03-03 15:37:25 UTC
FEDORA-2022-690ef32fec has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-690ef32fec

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2022-03-03 15:39:57 UTC
FEDORA-2022-690ef32fec has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2022-03-03 19:24:20 UTC
FEDORA-2022-2417f5fafc has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-2417f5fafc

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2022-03-03 23:54:42 UTC
FEDORA-2022-2417f5fafc has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-2417f5fafc \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-2417f5fafc

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2022-03-04 04:23:31 UTC
FEDORA-2022-4310a3ebef has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-4310a3ebef

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2022-03-04 13:12:39 UTC
FEDORA-2022-42346c4c56 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-42346c4c56

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2022-03-04 16:09:17 UTC
FEDORA-2022-4310a3ebef 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-2022-4310a3ebef \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-4310a3ebef

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2022-03-04 16:22:59 UTC
FEDORA-2022-42346c4c56 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-2022-42346c4c56 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-42346c4c56

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2022-03-13 18:01:04 UTC
FEDORA-2022-4310a3ebef has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2022-03-13 18:06:52 UTC
FEDORA-2022-42346c4c56 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2022-03-26 15:09:22 UTC
FEDORA-2022-2417f5fafc 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.