Spec URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-willow/python-willow.spec SRPM URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-willow/python-willow-1.7.0-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: Willow is a simple image library that combines the APIs of Pillow, Wand and OpenCV. It converts the image between the libraries when necessary. Willow currently has basic resize and crop operations, face and feature detection and animated GIF support. New operations and library integrations can also be easily implemented.
Tests (and package) currently fails due to python-filetype not being up-to-date. I will prepare a COPR.
COPR build : https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/lyessaadi/python-willow/build/6820726/
I will take this review.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues ====== - Is the patch still needed, since python-filetype has to be updated anyway? - Note the summary-too-long rpmlint error below. Can you make Summary more succinct? Perhaps "A single Python API for multiple image libraries"? - Please consider not building for i686, by adding this to the spec file: ExcludeArch: %{ix86} See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval ===== 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". 166 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. [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. [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 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 3692 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep [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 ===== 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]: 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. [-]: 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-willow-1.7.0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm python-willow-1.7.0-1.fc40.src.rpm ================================================ rpmlint session starts ================================================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmpqx8pte39')] checks: 31, packages: 2 python-willow.src: E: summary-too-long A wrapper that combines the functionality of multiple Python image libraries into one API python3-willow.noarch: E: summary-too-long A wrapper that combines the functionality of multiple Python image libraries into one API ================= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.5 s ================= Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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: 32, packages: 1 python3-willow.noarch: E: summary-too-long A wrapper that combines the functionality of multiple Python image libraries into one API python3-willow.noarch: E: spelling-error ('integrations', "%description -l en_US integrations -> integration, integration's, integration s") python3-willow.noarch: W: python-missing-require filetype python3-willow.noarch: W: python-missing-require defusedxml 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings, 3 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/wagtail/Willow/archive/v1.7.0/willow-1.7.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : febdb59efc97012b53ba19d67a29bf9b305fa4b6450d6bcb8a495878d8f106d4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : febdb59efc97012b53ba19d67a29bf9b305fa4b6450d6bcb8a495878d8f106d4 Requires -------- python3-willow (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.12dist(defusedxml) < 1~~ with python3.12dist(defusedxml) >= 0.7) python(abi) python3.12dist(filetype) Provides -------- python3-willow: python-willow python3-willow python3.12-willow python3.12dist(willow) python3dist(willow) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2255935 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, Haskell, C/C++, PHP, Ocaml, Perl, fonts, Ruby, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
> - Is the patch still needed, since python-filetype has to be updated anyway? It is not, it was only present here for the sake of building it to test it, but even smoke tests ended up failing under filetype 1.1.0. I will remove them. > - Note the summary-too-long rpmlint error below. Can you make Summary more > succinct? Perhaps "A single Python API for multiple image libraries"? Good idea! Wasn't sure if that error was important, but a shorter summary is a good idea anyway. > - Please consider not building for i686, by adding this to the spec file: > > ExcludeArch: %{ix86} > > See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval This is a noarch package, I do not really see the purpose in adding this, since it doesn't add build time, and it would be installable on i686 anyway?
(In reply to Lyes Saadi from comment #5) > This is a noarch package, I do not really see the purpose in adding this, > since it doesn't add build time, and it would be installable on i686 anyway? No, it would not be installable on i686. There would be no python3-willow package in the i686 repositories. The entire set of Java packages, for example, is no longer built for i686, even though most of them are noarch. I'm not requiring you to do this, just suggesting it, since we would like to eventually have only the i686 packages needed for wine and steam and no others.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6821188 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2255935-python-willow/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06821188-python-willow/builder-live.log.gz 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 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.
> No, it would not be installable on i686. There would be no python3-willow package in the i686 repositories. The entire set of Java packages, for example, is no longer built for i686, even though most of them are noarch. I meant manually taking the noarch file from the x86_64 repos and installing it on an i686 machine (despite it being impossible due to the absence of a 32bit Fedora Edition :P). Anyway, I guess it'll also lighten the i686 repos, I'll add it !
Spec URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-willow/python-willow.spec SRPM URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-willow/python-willow-1.7.0-1.fc40.src.rpm Taking into account review comments
Looks good. This package is APPROVED. If you can't get a response from the python-filetype maintainer, you may have to go through the unresponsive maintainer process. Good luck!
Thanks, now I wait I guess. Fabian Affolter definitely seems to be still active, he might have simply missed the bugzilla e-mail. I hope he'll see the pagure e-mail(s), or I'll try contacting him directly.
Finally able to push this ! Yay !
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-willow