https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155778
Bug ID: 1155778 Summary: Review Request: python-regex - Alternative regular expression module, to replace re Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: thomas.moschny@gmx.de QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://thm.fedorapeople.org/python-regex/python-regex.spec SRPM URL: https://thm.fedorapeople.org/python-regex/python-regex-2014.10.09-1.fc22.src...
Description: This new regex implementation is intended eventually to replace Python's current re module implementation.
For testing and comparison with the current 're' module the new implementation is in the form of a module called 'regex'.
Fedora Account System Username: thm Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7931621
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155778
Thomas Moschny thomas.moschny@gmx.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1152131
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152131 [Bug 1152131] python-textile-2.2.1 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155778
Christian Dersch chrisdersch@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |chrisdersch@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |chrisdersch@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Christian Dersch chrisdersch@gmail.com --- Assigned, review will follow soon!
Greetings, Christian
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155778
--- Comment #2 from Christian Dersch chrisdersch@gmail.com --- First review done, package looks already nice, just minor fixes required :)
Greetings, Christian
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Permissions on files are set properly. Note: See rpmlint output See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions
====> Please fix this using '%{_fixperms} %{buildroot}/*' at end of %install section
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
====> We package for Python here and get unversioned so-files from this
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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. [-]: 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 %doc.
====> Please ask upstream to include a license file :)
[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". 32 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/packaging/1155778-python-regex/licensecheck.txt [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages, /usr/lib64/python3.4
====> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112409 => Is OK
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/python3.4/site- packages, /usr/lib64/python3.4
====> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112409 => Is OK
[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. [-]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 184320 bytes in 6 files. [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]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: 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]: 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.
====> Already mentioned above: Please contact upstream :)
[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-regex
====> This is the python3 package, doesn't require the one for py2
[x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-regex-2014.10.09-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm python3-regex-2014.10.09-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm python-regex-2014.10.09-1.fc22.src.rpm python-regex.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/_regex.so 0775L python3-regex.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/_regex.cpython-34m.so 0775L 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings.
====> Please fix this using '%{_fixperms} %{buildroot}/*' at end of %install section
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python3-regex python-regex python3-regex.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/_regex.cpython-34m.so 0775L python-regex.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/_regex.so 0775L 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
====> Please fix this using '%{_fixperms} %{buildroot}/*' at end of %install section
Requires -------- python3-regex (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython3.4m.so.1.0()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH)
python-regex (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython2.7.so.1.0()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- python3-regex: python3-regex python3-regex(x86-64)
python-regex: python-regex python-regex(x86-64)
Unversioned so-files -------------------- python-regex: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/_regex.so python3-regex: /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/_regex.cpython-34m.so
====> Normal behaviour in case of Python packages
Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/r/regex/regex-2014.10.09.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a6bd9370eb7ee4163ab8912c5e3597d8b5b9061de820fc482d85c1e42b9d7d7d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a6bd9370eb7ee4163ab8912c5e3597d8b5b9061de820fc482d85c1e42b9d7d7d
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1155778 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155778
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Moschny thomas.moschny@gmx.de --- Asked upstream to include a LICENSE file: https://code.google.com/p/mrab-regex-hg/issues/detail?id=124
The permission problem is not present in koji builds, see the scratch build. Could be a umask issue when building locally.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155778
Christian Dersch chrisdersch@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Christian Dersch chrisdersch@gmail.com --- Approved! Koji builds show no permission problems and you asked upstream => package is fine now :)
Greetings Christian
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155778
Thomas Moschny thomas.moschny@gmx.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Moschny thomas.moschny@gmx.de --- Many thanks for the super-fast review!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-regex Short Description: Alternative regular expression module, to replace re Upstream URL: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/regex Owners: thm Branches: f20 f21 el6 epel7 InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155778
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155778
--- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155778
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155778
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-regex-2014.11.14-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-regex-2014.11.14-1.el6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155778
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-regex-2014.11.14-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-regex-2014.11.14-1.el7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155778
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-regex-2014.11.14-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-regex-2014.11.14-1.fc21
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155778
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-regex-2014.11.14-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-regex-2014.11.14-1.fc20
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155778
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-regex-2014.11.14-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155778
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |python-regex-2014.11.14-1.f | |c21 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2014-12-23 13:28:51
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-regex-2014.11.14-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155778
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|python-regex-2014.11.14-1.f |python-regex-2014.11.14-1.f |c21 |c20
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-regex-2014.11.14-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155778
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|python-regex-2014.11.14-1.f |python-regex-2014.11.14-1.e |c20 |l6
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-regex-2014.11.14-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155778
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|python-regex-2014.11.14-1.e |python-regex-2014.11.14-1.e |l6 |l7
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-regex-2014.11.14-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org