Bug 2224781 - Review Request: python-xkbcommon - Bindings for libxkbcommon using cffi
Summary: Review Request: python-xkbcommon - Bindings for libxkbcommon using cffi
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Sandro
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: https://github.com/sde1000/python-xkb...
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2023-07-22 18:45 UTC by Jakub Kadlčík
Modified: 2023-08-04 01:28 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2023-08-04 01:28:55 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
gui1ty: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6204264 to 6204311 (685 bytes, patch)
2023-07-22 19:15 UTC, Fedora Review Service
no flags Details | Diff
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6204311 to 6211431 (861 bytes, patch)
2023-07-25 17:10 UTC, Fedora Review Service
no flags Details | Diff

Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2023-07-22 18:50:43 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6204264
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2224781-python-xkbcommon/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06204264-python-xkbcommon/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 3 Fedora Review Service 2023-07-22 19:15:00 UTC
Created attachment 1977093 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6204264 to 6204311

Comment 4 Fedora Review Service 2023-07-22 19:15:02 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6204311
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2224781-python-xkbcommon/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06204311-python-xkbcommon/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 5 Sandro 2023-07-23 09:30:52 UTC
Package Review
==============

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

Issues
======
[!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

=> /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xkbcommon/_ffi.abi3.so

I'm not very at home in the C/C++ world. But that file probably belongs elsewhere.

[!] python3-xkbcommon.x86_64: W: no-documentation

=> Please include the README.rst

[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.

=> Is there a reason for not running the tests? GUI needed or such?


===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

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.
[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.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: 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.
[ ]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package installs properly.
[!]: 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]: 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:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: 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.
[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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[!]: %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
-------
Checking: python3-xkbcommon-0.8-2.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          python-xkbcommon-debugsource-0.8-2.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          python-xkbcommon-0.8-2.fc38.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/tmpsk8m8hgn')]
checks: 31, packages: 3

python3-xkbcommon.x86_64: W: no-documentation
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 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-xkbcommon.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xkbcommon/_ffi.abi3.so _Py_NoneStruct	(/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xkbcommon/_ffi.abi3.so)
python3-xkbcommon.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xkbcommon/_ffi.abi3.so PyObject_CallMethod	(/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xkbcommon/_ffi.abi3.so)
python3-xkbcommon.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xkbcommon/_ffi.abi3.so PyEval_RestoreThread	(/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xkbcommon/_ffi.abi3.so)
python3-xkbcommon.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xkbcommon/_ffi.abi3.so _Py_Dealloc	(/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xkbcommon/_ffi.abi3.so)
python3-xkbcommon.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xkbcommon/_ffi.abi3.so PyObject_Malloc	(/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xkbcommon/_ffi.abi3.so)
python3-xkbcommon.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xkbcommon/_ffi.abi3.so PyObject_Free	(/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xkbcommon/_ffi.abi3.so)
python3-xkbcommon.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xkbcommon/_ffi.abi3.so PyLong_FromLong	(/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xkbcommon/_ffi.abi3.so)
python3-xkbcommon.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xkbcommon/_ffi.abi3.so PyLong_FromVoidPtr	(/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xkbcommon/_ffi.abi3.so)
python3-xkbcommon.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xkbcommon/_ffi.abi3.so PyArg_UnpackTuple	(/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xkbcommon/_ffi.abi3.so)
python3-xkbcommon.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xkbcommon/_ffi.abi3.so PyErr_Occurred	(/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xkbcommon/_ffi.abi3.so)
python3-xkbcommon.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xkbcommon/_ffi.abi3.so PyImport_ImportModule	(/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xkbcommon/_ffi.abi3.so)
python3-xkbcommon.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xkbcommon/_ffi.abi3.so PyEval_SaveThread	(/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xkbcommon/_ffi.abi3.so)
python3-xkbcommon.x86_64: W: no-documentation
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 13 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s 



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
python3-xkbcommon: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xkbcommon/_ffi.abi3.so

Comment 6 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-07-25 16:59:20 UTC
Thank you for the review Sandro.
I am really sorry, I know I promised trivial packages. I guess it took you more time than expected.

Hopefully, everything fixed here:

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frostyx/python-xkbcommon/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06211386-python-xkbcommon/python-xkbcommon.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frostyx/python-xkbcommon/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06211386-python-xkbcommon/python-xkbcommon-0.8-3.fc39.src.rpm


> > [!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
> > 
> > => /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xkbcommon/_ffi.abi3.so
> > 
> I'm not very at home in the C/C++ world. But that file probably belongs elsewhere.

Same here, I was quite confused by this error, so I asked folks from the Python team and they told me this is a false-positive and we can ignore it.

Comment 7 Fedora Review Service 2023-07-25 17:10:42 UTC
Created attachment 1977589 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6204311 to 6211431

Comment 8 Fedora Review Service 2023-07-25 17:10:44 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6211431
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2224781-python-xkbcommon/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06211431-python-xkbcommon/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 9 Sandro 2023-07-25 23:21:31 UTC
> Thank you for the review Sandro.
> I am really sorry, I know I promised trivial packages. I guess it took you
> more time than expected.

No worries. I won't hold it against you ;)

> > > [!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
> > > 
> > > => /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xkbcommon/_ffi.abi3.so
> > > 
> > I'm not very at home in the C/C++ world. But that file probably belongs elsewhere.
> 
> Same here, I was quite confused by this error, so I asked folks from the
> Python team and they told me this is a false-positive and we can ignore it.

Yeah, Python has its peculiarities.

Package checks out now ==> APPROVED

Comment 10 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-07-25 23:28:49 UTC
Thank you very much for the review.

Comment 11 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-07-25 23:29:40 UTC
Thank you very much for the review.

Comment 12 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2023-07-26 17:29:29 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-xkbcommon

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2023-07-26 18:54:09 UTC
FEDORA-2023-026f964ba0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-026f964ba0

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2023-07-27 02:56:09 UTC
FEDORA-2023-026f964ba0 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-026f964ba0 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-026f964ba0

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

Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2023-08-04 01:28:55 UTC
FEDORA-2023-026f964ba0 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 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.