Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/python-mrcfile/python-mrcfile.spec SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/python-mrcfile/python-mrcfile-1.3.0-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: mrcfile is a Python implementation of the MRC2014 file format, which is used in structural biology to store image and volume data. It allows MRC files to be created and opened easily using a very simple API, which exposes the file's header and data as numpy arrays. The code runs in Python 2 and 3 and is fully unit-tested. This library aims to allow users and developers to read and write standard-compliant MRC files in Python as easily as possible, and with no dependencies on any compiled libraries except numpy. You can use it interactively to inspect files, correct headers and so on, or in scripts and larger software packages to provide basic MRC file I/O functions. Fedora Account System Username: rathann
Some tests are failing on s390x, reported upstream: https://github.com/ccpem/mrcfile/issues/35 .
I will take this review.
A Rawhide mock build fails: + cd mrcfile-1.3.0 + %py3_build /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.778jC8: line 42: fg: no job control That means that %py3_build isn't defined. But %py3_build and %py3_install are deprecated anyway. Is it possible to use %pyproject_wheel and %pyproject_install instead?
It builds fine in rawhide mock for me: $ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 ~/build/SOURCES/python-mrcfile/python-mrcfile-1.3.0-1.fc35.src.rpm ... Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python-mrcfile-1.3.0-1.fc37.x86_64 Wrote: /builddir/build/RPMS/python3-mrcfile-1.3.0-1.fc37.noarch.rpm Executing(%clean): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.MCUfpS + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + cd mrcfile-1.3.0 + /usr/bin/rm -rf /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python-mrcfile-1.3.0-1.fc37.x86_64 + RPM_EC=0 ++ jobs -p + exit 0 Finish: rpmbuild python-mrcfile-1.3.0-1.fc35.src.rpm Finish: build phase for python-mrcfile-1.3.0-1.fc35.src.rpm INFO: Done(/home/rathann/build/SOURCES/python-mrcfile/python-mrcfile-1.3.0-1.fc35.src.rpm) Config(fedora-rawhide-x86_64) 0 minutes 44 seconds INFO: Results and/or logs in: /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result Finish: run $ It also builds fine in koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=85611734 Well, except on s390x, but that's https://github.com/ccpem/mrcfile/issues/35 and I have to add ExcludeArch or skip the failing tests. Maybe your rawhide cache contains some broken packages. Please retry after mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --scrub=all It's not possible to use pyproject_* macros as upstream has not mighrated to pyproject yet (no pyproject.toml file in upstream sources, only setup.py).
(In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #4) > Maybe your rawhide cache contains some broken packages. Please retry after > mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --scrub=all You are right. That fixed it. Weird. > It's not possible to use pyproject_* macros as upstream has not mighrated to > pyproject yet (no pyproject.toml file in upstream sources, only setup.py). The %pyproject macros work with setup.py-based projects, too. Quoting from https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_build_macros: "If pyproject.toml is not found, the macros automatically fall backs to using setuptools with configuration in setup.cfg/setup.py." I have switched all of my python packages over to the new macros, and haven't had any trouble. You may still use the %py3 macros instead, but they are deprecated, so the switch to the new macros will have to happen sometime. I see no blocking issues, so this package is approved. Full review: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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", "BSD 3-Clause License". 57 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jamesjer/2063369-python-mrcfile/licensecheck.txt [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. [!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. A bug has been filed upstream and the maintainer is prepared to deal with this. [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]: 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). [?]: 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. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. It is present and the tests pass on all but s390x. See above. [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-mrcfile.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mrcfile-header python3-mrcfile.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mrcfile-validate Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-mrcfile.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mrcfile-header python3-mrcfile.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mrcfile-validate Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ccpem/mrcfile/archive/v1.3.0/mrcfile-1.3.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 034f1868abf87f4e494b8b039030b50045cabccf352b8b3e88a6bd3a6d665715 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 034f1868abf87f4e494b8b039030b50045cabccf352b8b3e88a6bd3a6d665715 Requires -------- python3-mrcfile (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.10dist(numpy) Provides -------- python3-mrcfile: python-mrcfile python3-mrcfile python3.10-mrcfile python3.10dist(mrcfile) python3dist(mrcfile) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2063369 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, Ocaml, R, PHP, Ruby, fonts, Haskell, Java, C/C++, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-mrcfile
FEDORA-2022-634e746cad has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-634e746cad
FEDORA-2022-634e746cad 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-2022-634e746cad \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-634e746cad See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-634e746cad has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.