Bug 2175182 - Review Request: python-intern - Python SDK for interacting with neuroscience data via the Boss API
Summary: Review Request: python-intern - Python SDK for interacting with neuroscience ...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: https://github.com/jhuapl-boss/intern
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: fedora-neuro, NeuroFedora
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2023-03-03 13:51 UTC by Ben Beasley
Modified: 2023-03-23 01:32 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2023-03-13 18:46:42 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
sanjay.ankur: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Ben Beasley 2023-03-03 13:51:52 UTC
Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-intern-1.4.0-1.fc37.src.rpm
SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-intern.spec
Description:

intern (Integrated Toolkit for Extensible and Reproducible Neuroscience) is a
Python 3 module that enables big-data neuroscience. Currently, it provides an
interface to common big-data neuroimaging databases such as BossDB,
CloudVolume, DVID, and other standard formats.

Fedora Account System Username: music

Koji scratch builds:
F39: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=98238244
F38: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=98238320
F37: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=98238333
F36: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=98238335

The above are forced to build on all architectures for testing, e.g.,

$ koji build --scratch f39 --arch_override='x86_64 i686 ppc64le aarch64 s390x' python-intern-1.4.0-1.fc37.src.rpm

Comment 1 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-03-03 13:59:05 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5589703
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2175182-python-intern/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05589703-python-intern/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 2 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2023-03-13 14:24:31 UTC
LGTM XXX APPROVED XXX

- Upstream released a new tag with your PR and a couple of fixes, so worth updating to that after import:
https://github.com/jhuapl-boss/intern/compare/v1.4.0...v1.4.1



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". 63 files have unknown license. Detailed output
     of licensecheck in /home/asinha/dump/fedora-reviews/2175182-python-
     intern/licensecheck.txt
[x]: 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.
[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).
^
Messages are OK

[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     python3-intern
[x]: Package functions as described.
^
Tests pass
[?]: Latest version is packaged.
I see they released 1.4.1 last week (merging your PR). So worth updating to this before building, or you'll get an immediate notification from release-monitoring.org :)


[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[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
-------
Checking: python3-intern-1.4.0-1.fc39.noarch.rpm
          python-intern-doc-1.4.0-1.fc39.noarch.rpm
          python-intern-1.4.0-1.fc39.src.rpm
=========================================================================== rpmlint session starts ==========================================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpsjz4n2yn')]
checks: 31, packages: 3

python3-intern.noarch: W: no-documentation
python3-intern.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/intern/service/boss/tests/__init__.py /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/intern/remote/boss/tests/__init__.py
============================================ 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.4 s ===========================================




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 2

python3-intern.noarch: W: no-documentation
python3-intern.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/intern/service/boss/tests/__init__.py /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/intern/remote/boss/tests/__init__.py
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/i/intern/intern-1.4.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : bbe2b387ba994f5fd2fadf60cf5a7b125d287832b6e28081eb638d7895002395
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bbe2b387ba994f5fd2fadf60cf5a7b125d287832b6e28081eb638d7895002395


Requires
--------
python3-intern (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3.11dist(blosc)
    python3.11dist(joblib)
    python3.11dist(nose2)
    python3.11dist(numpy)
    python3.11dist(pillow)
    python3.11dist(psutil)
    python3.11dist(requests)
    python3.11dist(six)
    python3.11dist(tqdm)

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



Provides
--------
python3-intern:
    python-intern
    python3-intern
    python3.11-intern
    python3.11dist(intern)
    python3dist(intern)

python-intern-doc:
    python-intern-doc



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2175182
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Haskell, C/C++, SugarActivity, R, fonts, PHP, Java, Perl
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comment 3 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2023-03-13 18:32:15 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-intern

Comment 4 Fedora Update System 2023-03-13 18:43:34 UTC
FEDORA-2023-b92a00563c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-b92a00563c

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2023-03-13 18:46:42 UTC
FEDORA-2023-b92a00563c has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2023-03-14 12:03:42 UTC
FEDORA-2023-9c368c1c9e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-9c368c1c9e

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2023-03-14 12:15:38 UTC
FEDORA-2023-c6b9740f42 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-c6b9740f42

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2023-03-14 12:24:58 UTC
FEDORA-2023-48ddb6cd6c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-48ddb6cd6c

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2023-03-15 01:47:33 UTC
FEDORA-2023-c6b9740f42 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-c6b9740f42 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-c6b9740f42

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

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2023-03-15 01:49:13 UTC
FEDORA-2023-9c368c1c9e has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-9c368c1c9e

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

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2023-03-15 02:08:18 UTC
FEDORA-2023-48ddb6cd6c 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 --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-48ddb6cd6c \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-48ddb6cd6c

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

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2023-03-23 00:16:03 UTC
FEDORA-2023-9c368c1c9e has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2023-03-23 01:23:17 UTC
FEDORA-2023-48ddb6cd6c has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2023-03-23 01:32:46 UTC
FEDORA-2023-c6b9740f42 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 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.