Bug 2235062 (python-extractcode-7z) - Review Request: python-extractcode-7z - ScanCode Toolkit plugin to use pre-installed 7zip executables
Summary: Review Request: python-extractcode-7z - ScanCode Toolkit plugin to use pre-in...
Alias: python-extractcode-7z
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jerry James
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: https://github.com/nexB/scancode-plugins
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2023-08-26 11:21 UTC by Robert-André Mauchin 🐧
Modified: 2023-11-11 05:40 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2023-11-10 01:45:31 UTC
Type: ---
loganjerry: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2023-08-26 11:21:33 UTC
Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-extractcode-7z.spec
SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-extractcode-7z-1.0.0-1.fc38.src.rpm

The path of 7zip is either determined by distro data or explicitily taken from EXTRACTCODE_7Z_PATH environment variable.

Fedora Account System Username: eclipseo

To build it against the dependencies, use the following COPR in your rawhide mock.cfg:

name=Copr repo for scancode-toolkit owned by eclipseo

Comment 1 Jerry James 2023-09-11 17:19:21 UTC
I will take this review.  If you are okay with OCaml reviews, I would appreciate a review of ocaml-pcre2 (bug 2238187).

Comment 2 Jerry James 2023-09-11 17:33:18 UTC
Package Review

[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

- Remove the -t flag from %pyproject_buildrequires.  This package does not use
  tox to test.

- I am confused about the version.  I see that upstream tagged v1.0.0 on May
  11, 2020, but there are later tags (v21.01.22, ..., v21.5.31, as well as
  compiledcode-v2.0.0 and compiledcode-v2.1.0).  Can you explain what is going
  on here, and why you chose the v1.0.0 tag for this package?

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

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later [obsolete FSF
     postal address (Temple Place)]", "Unknown or generated", "*No
     copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0". 4 files have
     unknown license.
[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
[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).
[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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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
[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
[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 150 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
[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

===== SHOULD items =====

[-]: 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.
[!]: 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
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: 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
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[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
[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 =====

[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Checking: python3-extractcode-7z-1.0.0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm
================================================ rpmlint session starts ================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp0w_vhri3')]
checks: 31, packages: 2

python-extractcode-7z.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: extractcode-7z-1.0.0.tar.gz
================= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s =================

Rpmlint (installed packages)
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
checks: 31, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s 

Source checksums
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/nexB/scancode-plugins/main/builtins/extractcode_7z_system_provided/apache-2.0.LICENSE :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30

python3-extractcode-7z (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2235062 -m fedora-rawhide-eclipseo
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-eclipseo
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python
Disabled plugins: fonts, R, Java, Perl, SugarActivity, Ruby, Ocaml, PHP, Haskell, C/C++

Comment 4 Fedora Review Service 2023-10-15 16:23:58 UTC
Copr build:

Build log:

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field

This comment was created by the 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 Jerry James 2023-10-15 16:42:25 UTC
Okay, so the 21.x tags are the right ones, I take it.  In that case, I am satisfied.  This package is APPROVED.

Comment 6 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2023-10-21 15:58:33 UTC
Thank you for the review, Jerry


Comment 7 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2023-10-21 15:58:46 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-extractcode-7z

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2023-11-01 21:53:48 UTC
FEDORA-2023-ab909da7ac has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-ab909da7ac

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2023-11-02 01:49:09 UTC
FEDORA-2023-ab909da7ac has been pushed to the Fedora 39 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-ab909da7ac \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-ab909da7ac

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

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2023-11-02 16:48:50 UTC
FEDORA-2023-0e8881e180 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-0e8881e180

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2023-11-03 02:26:44 UTC
FEDORA-2023-0e8881e180 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-2023-0e8881e180 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-0e8881e180

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

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2023-11-10 01:45:31 UTC
FEDORA-2023-ab909da7ac has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2023-11-11 05:40:52 UTC
FEDORA-2023-0e8881e180 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.