Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-py27hash.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-py27hash-1.0.2-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: This package helps ease the migration from Python 2 to 3 for applications that depend on the old hash/iteration order of sets/dicts. Even when setting PYTHONHASHSEED=0, the hash (and default iteration order) will still be different as the hashing algorithm changed in Python 3. This package allows Python 2.7 hashing and set/dict iteration. Fedora Account System Username: music Koji scratch builds: F37: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=84603892 F36: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=84603917 F35: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=84603919 This is required for python-aws-sam-translator-1.43.0 (bug 2066966).
Major, would you happen to have a chance to review this trivial new dependency for a public-cloud-related package? Thanks!
The F37 scratch build failed, which took me by surprise. It turns out that the hard-coded values in the tests are for 64-bit Python, and 32-bit Python 2.7 had different values. I’ll propose a patch upstream and update this review request.
Sure, Ben. Just hit me with a needinfo when you're ready. â›…
Thanks! Ready. New Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20220323/python-py27hash.spec New SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20220323/python-py27hash-1.0.2-1.fc35.src.rpm F37: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=84606766
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. (Ignore -- rpm-autospec is fine) ✅ Approved. It seems like %forgemeta might save you a little work, but what you have here works just fine. ===== MUST items ===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/python- py27hash/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. [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]: 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: [!]: 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]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: 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). Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/neuml/py27hash/archive/v1.0.2/py27hash-1.0.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 789b279cb8c4a6fcd38658d8d47b8df6ac7622ec10d1a9c07200cdbf851620cd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 789b279cb8c4a6fcd38658d8d47b8df6ac7622ec10d1a9c07200cdbf851620cd Requires -------- python3-py27hash (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-py27hash: python-py27hash python3-py27hash python3.10-py27hash python3.10dist(py27hash) python3dist(py27hash) 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-py27hash --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: PHP, R, fonts, SugarActivity, Java, Perl, Haskell, Ocaml, C/C++ Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks for the review! Repository requested.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-py27hash
FEDORA-2022-9d6e4602cf has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-9d6e4602cf
FEDORA-2022-9d6e4602cf has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-e9036609b2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-e9036609b2
FEDORA-2022-9a2db0a78c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-9a2db0a78c
FEDORA-2022-0a67083a16 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-0a67083a16
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-a94d439be4 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-a94d439be4
FEDORA-2022-e9036609b2 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-e9036609b2 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-e9036609b2 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-7343dc5aad has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-7343dc5aad
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-5f643daa3f has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-5f643daa3f
FEDORA-2022-0a67083a16 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-2022-0a67083a16 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-0a67083a16 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-9a2db0a78c 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-2022-9a2db0a78c \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-9a2db0a78c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-5f643daa3f has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-5f643daa3f See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-a94d439be4 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-a94d439be4 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-7343dc5aad 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-2022-7343dc5aad See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-e9036609b2 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-7343dc5aad has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-5f643daa3f has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-0a67083a16 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-9a2db0a78c has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-a94d439be4 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.