Spec URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/vyper.spec SRPM URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/vyper-0.4.0-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: Pythonic Smart Contract Language for the EVM. Fedora Account System Username: peter Koji scratch build for Rawhide: * https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=121053829
I will take this review. If you don't mind reviewing GAP packages, I could use a review of bug 2303280.
Just a few minor items, most of which are nonblocking for this review: - There is no point in passing the -t flag to %pyproject_buildrequires if the tests cannot be run anyway - If you don't need this package on i386, it would be nice to add "ExcludeArch: %{ix86}". See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval - Under "SHOULD items" below, "Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified" has not been done. - Please see the non-executable-script warning below. Should that file be executable? Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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", "*No copyright* Apache License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 507 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 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 5769 bytes in 2 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: 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: vyper-0.4.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm vyper-0.4.0-1.fc41.src.rpm ================================================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpuxbrd3dd')] checks: 32, packages: 2 vyper.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Pythonic', 'Summary(en_US) Pythonic -> Python') vyper.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Pythonic', '%description -l en_US Pythonic -> Python') vyper.src: E: spelling-error ('Pythonic', 'Summary(en_US) Pythonic -> Python') vyper.src: E: spelling-error ('Pythonic', '%description -l en_US Pythonic -> Python') vyper.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/vyper/__main__.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 vyper.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fang vyper.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vyper vyper.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vyper-json ========== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 3 warnings, 14 filtered, 5 badness; has taken 0.6 s =========== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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 vyper.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Pythonic', 'Summary(en_US) Pythonic -> Python') vyper.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Pythonic', '%description -l en_US Pythonic -> Python') vyper.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/vyper/__main__.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 vyper.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fang vyper.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vyper vyper.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vyper-json 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 3 warnings, 10 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.2 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/v/vyper/vyper-0.4.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9687145c6a0bf42de52e92202ce9a913648d3c657ac8e5cfb9b35a100dc47e34 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9687145c6a0bf42de52e92202ce9a913648d3c657ac8e5cfb9b35a100dc47e34 Requires -------- vyper (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.13dist(asttokens) < 3~~ with python3.13dist(asttokens) >= 2.0.5) (python3.13dist(cbor2) < 6~~ with python3.13dist(cbor2) >= 5.4.6) (python3.13dist(pycryptodomex) < 4~~ with python3.13dist(pycryptodomex) >= 3.5.1) /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.13dist(importlib-metadata) python3.13dist(lark) python3.13dist(packaging) python3.13dist(wheel) Provides -------- vyper: python3.13dist(vyper) python3dist(vyper) vyper Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2299981 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, C/C++, Java, fonts, PHP, Ruby, Haskell, SugarActivity, Perl, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #2) > Just a few minor items, most of which are nonblocking for this review: > > - There is no point in passing the -t flag to %pyproject_buildrequires if > the tests cannot be run anyway Done. I'll return it back as soon as all builddeps required for testing will be available. > - If you don't need this package on i386, it would be nice to add > "ExcludeArch: %{ix86}". See > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval I do not need it on i386 but the package is noarch anyway so I'd rather not add an extra line to a spec-file. > - Under "SHOULD items" below, "Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists > or are otherwise justified" has not been done. All these three packages are Fedora-specific. I'll explain: * Patch1: vyper-0001-Use-Cryptodomex.patch ^^^ We package Cryptodomex with Cryptodome prefix. I'll try to propose upstream a compatible solution. * Patch2: vyper-0002-Ease-version-requirements.patch ^^^ Fedora sometimes has too modern libraries versions and upstream is too conservative to consider relaxing requirements. * Patch3: vyper-0003-Lark-should-go-to-the-main-install-section-as-it-use.patch ^^^ This was rejected by upstream and necessary only for %pyproject_check_import passing. > - Please see the non-executable-script warning below. Should that file be > executable? Done. The same links: Spec URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/vyper.spec SRPM URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/vyper-0.4.0-1.fc40.src.rpm
(In reply to Peter Lemenkov from comment #3) > (In reply to Jerry James from comment #2) > > - Under "SHOULD items" below, "Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists > > or are otherwise justified" has not been done. > > All these three packages are Fedora-specific. I'll explain: Sure, I could tell what the patches do by looking at them. I was just asking if you are willing to add comments in the spec file with these explanations so Random Packager can tell what they do. This is a SHOULD, not a MUST, so I will not block on the review on it, but please consider adding such explanations. This package is APPROVED.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/vyper
FEDORA-2024-76ba786756 (vyper-0.4.0-2.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-76ba786756
FEDORA-2024-e18ac26804 (vyper-0.4.0-2.fc39) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-e18ac26804
FEDORA-2024-76ba786756 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-76ba786756 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-76ba786756 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-e18ac26804 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-2024-e18ac26804 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-e18ac26804 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-76ba786756 (vyper-0.4.0-2.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-e18ac26804 (vyper-0.4.0-2.fc39) has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.