[Bug 1262470] New: Review Request: python-PyPDF2 - A pure Python library built as a PDF toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262470
Bug ID: 1262470 Summary: Review Request: python-PyPDF2 - A pure Python library built as a PDF toolkit Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: major@mhtx.net QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://mhayden.fedorapeople.org/python-PyPDF2.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mhayden/python-PyPDF2/fedora... Description: A pure Python library built as a PDF toolkit. It is capable of:
- extracting document information (title, author, ...), - splitting documents page by page, - merging documents page by page, - cropping pages, - merging multiple pages into a single page, - encrypting and decrypting PDF files.
By being pure Python, it should run on any Python platform without any dependencies on external libraries. It can also work entirely on StringIO objects rather than file streams, allowing for PDF manipulation in memory. It is therefore a useful tool for websites that manage or manipulate PDFs.
Fedora Account System Username: mhayden
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262470
Major Hayden major@mhtx.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |itsme_410@yahoo.com
--- Comment #1 from Major Hayden major@mhtx.net --- *** Bug 1234208 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262470
Pete Travis me@petetravis.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |me@petetravis.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |me@petetravis.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262470
Pete Travis me@petetravis.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Pete Travis me@petetravis.com --- Hey Major, a few concerns remaining:
- LICENSE file should go in every subpackage, not only -doc
- rpmlint doesn't like shebangs on non-executable files. None of the files in %python?_sitelib should be executable, and should not have shebangs.
- rpmlint also complains about shebangs and executables for sample code in %doc. I don't think that executables there are especially *wrong*, but they're done incorrectly here; please check over the files in %doc and patch/sed/chmod them so that they're only executable if they should be, and only have a shebang if they are directly executable.
Note that makesimple.sh invokes enscript, which is not a declared dependency; %doc should not add additional requires, but Suggests: might be more appropriate. Shipping an executable that doesn't work seems awkward, even in %doc.
Otherwise, all seems well.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262470
--- Comment #3 from Globe Trotter itsme_410@yahoo.com --- Pete,
Since Major did not respond yet, I was looking at this (I was the original packager on BZ, see the duplicate, now closed, which preceded this one).
- LICENSE file should go in every subpackage, not only -doc
How does one do this?
Separately, I had some warnings on rpmlint using my spec file: see 1234208 but , no erors.
$ rpmlint python-PyPDF2-1.24-1.1.fc22.src.rpm python-PyPDF2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decrypting -> decryption, encrypting, decrying python-PyPDF2.src: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause python-PyPDF2.src: W: no-url-tag python-PyPDF2.src:29: W: macro-in-comment %{modulename} python-PyPDF2.src:29: W: macro-in-comment %{version} python-PyPDF2.src: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog: Thu Jul 11 2015 stat.maitra@inbox.com 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. maitra@alakananda 21:59:54~$ rpmlint python-PyPDF2-1.24-1.1.fc22.src.rpm python-PyPDF2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decrypting -> decryption, encrypting, decrying python-PyPDF2.src: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause python-PyPDF2.src: W: no-url-tag python-PyPDF2.src:29: W: macro-in-comment %{modulename} python-PyPDF2.src:29: W: macro-in-comment %{version} 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
Are these important?
Of course, perhaps Major will respond with the corrections you requested/suggested.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262470
Matthias Runge mrunge@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mrunge@redhat.com
--- Comment #4 from Matthias Runge mrunge@redhat.com --- Globe,
this is an error: python-PyPDF2.src: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog: Thu Jul 11 2015 stat.maitra@inbox.com
most of your rpmlint warnings can be fixed easily.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262470
--- Comment #5 from Globe Trotter itsme_410@yahoo.com --- New files uploaded here:
SPEC: http://maitra.public.iastate.edu/Fedora/python-PyPDF2.spec
SRPM: http://maitra.public.iastate.edu/Fedora/python-PyPDF2-1.25.1-1.1.fc22.src.rp...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262470
--- Comment #6 from Major Hayden major@mhtx.net --- Globe Trotter -- I thought you wanted me to package this up?
Pete:
https://mhayden.fedorapeople.org/python-PyPDF2.spec https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mhayden/python-PyPDF2/fedora...
COPR build: https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/mhayden/python-PyPDF2/build/117780/
$ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/python*1.25.1-2* python3-PyPDF2.noarch: W: no-documentation python-PyPDF2.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
I'd like to avoid adding additional requirements for the package just for something in the examples, but I can be persuaded. ;)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262470
--- Comment #7 from Globe Trotter itsme_410@yahoo.com --- (In reply to Major Hayden from comment #6)
Globe Trotter -- I thought you wanted me to package this up?
Pete:
https://mhayden.fedorapeople.org/python-PyPDF2.spec https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mhayden/python-PyPDF2/fedora... rawhide-x86_64/00117780-python-PyPDF2/python-PyPDF2-1.25.1-2.fc24.src.rpm
COPR build: https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/mhayden/python-PyPDF2/build/117780/
$ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/python*1.25.1-2* python3-PyPDF2.noarch: W: no-documentation python-PyPDF2.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
I'd like to avoid adding additional requirements for the package just for something in the examples, but I can be persuaded. ;)
Apologies: I am not sure how one handles this. I wrote the original spec and srpm on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1234208. Then Major said he was okay with taking it over and offered me to be his co-maintainer. (Which I was ok with, but then he did not answer, I decided to post my updated spec and SRPM files which now only have the following rpmlint warning:
$ rpmlint python-PyPDF2-1.25.1-1.1.fc22.src.rpm python-PyPDF2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decrypting -> decryption, encrypting, decrying 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Would you like me to open up the other request? It just sat there without an asignee (unfortunately).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262470
--- Comment #8 from Globe Trotter itsme_410@yahoo.com --- (In reply to Major Hayden from comment #6)
Globe Trotter -- I thought you wanted me to package this up?
Oops! Sorry I did not notice that it was Major. Thought it was Pete.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262470
Matthias Runge mrunge@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1234210
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1234210 [Bug 1234210] Review Request: pdf-stapler - tool for manipulating PDF documents from the command line
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262470
--- Comment #9 from Pete Travis me@petetravis.com --- Ranjan, I'm going to send you an email. Bugzilla isn't a great place for an open ended discussion. We can help you with learning packaging techniques, but this particular review fixes broken packages already in the repos so we would like to move forward with it quickly.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262470
Major Hayden major@mhtx.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1245113
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1245113 [Bug 1245113] [abrt] python-xhtml2pdf: util.py:39:<module>:ImportError: Reportlab Version 2.1+ is needed!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262470
Pete Travis me@petetravis.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from Pete Travis me@petetravis.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [+] = Manual review pass [!] = Manual review fail
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [+]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [+]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/pete/fedpkg/1262470 -python-PyPDF2/licensecheck.txt [+]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [+]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [+]: Changelog in prescribed format. [+]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [+]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [+]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+]: 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. [+]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [+]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [+]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [+]: 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]: 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]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [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: [+]: 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. [+]: 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. [+]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-PyPDF2 , python-PyPDF2-doc [+]: Package functions as described. [+]: Latest version is packaged. [+]: 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. [+]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [+]: 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]: 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-PyPDF2-1.25.1-2.fc24.noarch.rpm python3-PyPDF2-1.25.1-2.fc24.noarch.rpm python-PyPDF2-doc-1.25.1-2.fc24.noarch.rpm python-PyPDF2-1.25.1-2.fc24.src.rpm python-PyPDF2.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-PyPDF2.noarch: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-PyPDF2.noarch: W: no-documentation python-PyPDF2.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Requires -------- python3-PyPDF2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi)
python-PyPDF2-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
python-PyPDF2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi)
Provides -------- python3-PyPDF2: python3-PyPDF2
python-PyPDF2-doc: python-PyPDF2-doc
python-PyPDF2: python-PyPDF2
Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/P/PyPDF2/PyPDF2-1.25.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 43d324f70f8994c25a08e6edc02ec2d5c1e84c9231d3537f785b3f97641182eb CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 43d324f70f8994c25a08e6edc02ec2d5c1e84c9231d3537f785b3f97641182eb
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1262470 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
No problems here, package is APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262470
Major Hayden major@mhtx.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #11 from Major Hayden major@mhtx.net --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-PyPDF2 Short Description: Python PDF toolkit and library Upstream URL: https://github.com/mstamy2/PyPDF2 Owners: mhayden Branches: f21 f22 f23 el6 epel7 InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262470
--- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- This SCM request method has been deprecated. Please see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageDB_admin_requests.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262470
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262470
--- Comment #13 from Major Hayden major@mhtx.net --- Sorry about that. Thanks for the pointer to the new process. I'll do that now.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262470
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-PyPDF2-1.25.1-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-bf9da150ca
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262470
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262470
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-PyPDF2-1.25.1-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-9eeaab33ac
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262470
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-PyPDF2-1.25.1-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 21. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-04d77a0207
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262470
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-PyPDF2-1.25.1-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update python-PyPDF2' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-04d77a0207
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262470
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-PyPDF2-1.25.1-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update python-PyPDF2' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-bf9da150ca
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262470
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-PyPDF2-1.25.1-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update python-PyPDF2' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-9eeaab33ac
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262470
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-PyPDF2-1.25.1-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262470
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2015-10-23 12:20:46
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262470
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-PyPDF2-1.25.1-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262470
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-PyPDF2-1.25.1-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262470
--- Comment #23 from Ranjan Maitra itsme_410@yahoo.com --- I realized today that python-PyPDF2 never compiled on EPEL7. This needs to be reopened and fixed because pdf-stapler is also held up. Since I am not on the ACL anymore (perhaps never was, and I misunderstood, but this is not important), I went back and resubmitted to koji to see the error and I get:
From the build.log on koji:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16007082
I get:
sh: /usr/bin/python2: No such file or directory
I guess that EPEL7 is a bit of a challenge in this case?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262470
Ranjan Maitra itsme_410@yahoo.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |MODIFIED Resolution|ERRATA |--- Keywords| |Reopened
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262470
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zbyszek@in.waw.pl
--- Comment #24 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl --- No, that error message appears all the time when initializing mock. Somebody should fix it, but it's unrelated.
The real error is in mock_output.log: Getting requirements for python-PyPDF2-1.25.1-1.1.el7.src --> python-devel-2.7.5-39.el7_2.x86_64 --> python-nose-1.3.0-3.el7.noarch Error: No Package found for python3-devel Error: No Package found for python3-nose
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262470
--- Comment #25 from Ranjan Maitra itsme_410@yahoo.com --- Thank you! I see that the problem is that there is no python3 for EPEL7. Surprisingly, python3-nose has built fine for EPEL7, as per bodhi.
I have asked to be added/the python3 EPEL package to be built. I will keep looking at this.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262470
Eric Smith spacewar@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |spacewar@gmail.com
--- Comment #26 from Eric Smith spacewar@gmail.com --- There are now python34 and python36 in EPEL7, so it may be possible to package python3-PyPDF2 for EPEL7 now.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com -
Red Hat Bugzilla