[Bug 1529023] Review Request: python-validators - Data Validation in python for Humans

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529023

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2018-01-23 16:43:20



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-validators-0.12.0-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1529023] Review Request: python-validators - Data Validation in python for Humans

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529023

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-validators-0.12.0-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-2e8e0c2a4a

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1529023] Review Request: python-validators - Data Validation in python for Humans

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529023

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|MODIFIED



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1529023] Review Request: python-validators - Data Validation in python for Humans

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529023



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-validators-0.12.0-2.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-2e8e0c2a4a

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1529023] Review Request: python-validators - Data Validation in python for Humans

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529023



--- Comment #9 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-validators. You may commit to the
branch "f27" in about 10 minutes.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1529023] Review Request: python-validators - Data Validation in python for Humans

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529023



--- Comment #8 from William Moreno  ---
> 
> Package APPROVED!

Thanks for this review, please ping if you need a package review, the 3
packages you have listed are already aproved.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1529023] Review Request: python-validators - Data Validation in python for Humans

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529023



--- Comment #7 from David Carlos  ---
(In reply to Björn "besser82" Esser from comment #6)
> (In reply to David Carlos from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Björn "besser82" Esser from comment #4)
> > > > - Your License field defines BSD as the package license, but upstream 
> > > > uses
> > > > MIT.
> > > > I had notices that the upstream setup.py file defines the license as 
> > > > BSD,
> > > > but the LICENSE file is MIT.
> > > > I don't have enough knowledge about licensing but this appear
> > > > a bit inconsistent to me.
> > > 
> > > > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
> > > >  Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
> > > >  found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (unspecified)", "Unknown or
> > > >  generated", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 48 files have 
> > > > unknown
> > > >  license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
> > > >  /home2/david/rpmbuild/REVISIONS/1529023-python-
> > > >  validators/licensecheck.txt
> > > 
> > > Well, there is very little difference in these licenses.  On Pypi the
> > > package is distributed as BSD licensed…  That's why I didn't complain 
> > > about
> > > it.
> > > 
> > > The only real difference between those two licenses is:  BSD *requires* 
> > > you
> > > to redistribute the license file, MIT does not (It just recommends 'shall
> > > be' to do it).
> > > 
> > > For a Fedora package this difference is not relevant, since we require to
> > > redistribute the license file along with the SRPM and the binary RPMs by 
> > > our
> > > guidelines.
> > > 
> > 
> > We are packaging a license file containing a MIT license description, but
> > the license spec field defines the license as BSD. If this is relevant or
> > not, I really don't know, but is inconsistent. In my point of view this is
> > not a packaging problem, but was a decision made by the upstream (in my
> > opinion, a inconsistent decision) that is making the license spec field and
> > the license file be different.
> 
> Then that *should* be discussed with upstream and changed in a new release
> of the package…

As I said, it is not a packaging problem, but is a problem that is interfering
in how the packaging was made.

> 
> > > > [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
> > > 
> > > I don't get the reason, why the package doesn't comply to the additional
> > > Python guidelines…
> > 
> > William should use the python macros defined on the guidelines, as I pointed
> > on the review.
> 
> Mhh…  'should' != 'must' and thus doesn't violate the guidelines.  Or is my
> logic wrong here?

The fedora-review tool not fills this item automatically. Is a reviewer
decision if using or not a macro violates the python guidelines. On the
guidelines is not explicit defined that not using macros is a violation, but is
a rule that I, as a reviewer, always follow. If there is a macro for something,
use it. So, for me this is a packaging rule and I should have said 'must'
instead of 'should'. In any case, this is a informal review so he can decides
by him self this question.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1529023] Review Request: python-validators - Data Validation in python for Humans

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529023



--- Comment #6 from Björn "besser82" Esser  ---
(In reply to David Carlos from comment #5)
> (In reply to Björn "besser82" Esser from comment #4)
> > > - Your License field defines BSD as the package license, but upstream uses
> > > MIT.
> > > I had notices that the upstream setup.py file defines the license as BSD,
> > > but the LICENSE file is MIT.
> > > I don't have enough knowledge about licensing but this appear
> > > a bit inconsistent to me.
> > 
> > > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
> > >  Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
> > >  found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (unspecified)", "Unknown or
> > >  generated", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 48 files have unknown
> > >  license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
> > >  /home2/david/rpmbuild/REVISIONS/1529023-python-
> > >  validators/licensecheck.txt
> > 
> > Well, there is very little difference in these licenses.  On Pypi the
> > package is distributed as BSD licensed…  That's why I didn't complain about
> > it.
> > 
> > The only real difference between those two licenses is:  BSD *requires* you
> > to redistribute the license file, MIT does not (It just recommends 'shall
> > be' to do it).
> > 
> > For a Fedora package this difference is not relevant, since we require to
> > redistribute the license file along with the SRPM and the binary RPMs by our
> > guidelines.
> > 
> 
> We are packaging a license file containing a MIT license description, but
> the license spec field defines the license as BSD. If this is relevant or
> not, I really don't know, but is inconsistent. In my point of view this is
> not a packaging problem, but was a decision made by the upstream (in my
> opinion, a inconsistent decision) that is making the license spec field and
> the license file be different.

Then that *should* be discussed with upstream and changed in a new release of
the package…


> > > [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
> > 
> > I don't get the reason, why the package doesn't comply to the additional
> > Python guidelines…
> 
> William should use the python macros defined on the guidelines, as I pointed
> on the review.

Mhh…  'should' != 'must' and thus doesn't violate the guidelines.  Or is my
logic wrong here?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1529023] Review Request: python-validators - Data Validation in python for Humans

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529023



--- Comment #5 from David Carlos  ---
(In reply to Björn "besser82" Esser from comment #4)
> > - Your License field defines BSD as the package license, but upstream uses
> > MIT.
> > I had notices that the upstream setup.py file defines the license as BSD,
> > but the LICENSE file is MIT.
> > I don't have enough knowledge about licensing but this appear
> > a bit inconsistent to me.
> 
> > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
> >  Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
> >  found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (unspecified)", "Unknown or
> >  generated", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 48 files have unknown
> >  license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
> >  /home2/david/rpmbuild/REVISIONS/1529023-python-
> >  validators/licensecheck.txt
> 
> Well, there is very little difference in these licenses.  On Pypi the
> package is distributed as BSD licensed…  That's why I didn't complain about
> it.
> 
> The only real difference between those two licenses is:  BSD *requires* you
> to redistribute the license file, MIT does not (It just recommends 'shall
> be' to do it).
> 
> For a Fedora package this difference is not relevant, since we require to
> redistribute the license file along with the SRPM and the binary RPMs by our
> guidelines.
> 

We are packaging a license file containing a MIT license description, but the
license spec field defines the license as BSD. If this is relevant or not, I
really don't know, but is inconsistent. In my point of view this is not a
packaging problem, but was a decision made by the upstream (in my opinion, a
inconsistent decision) that is making the license spec field and the license
file be different.

> 
> > [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
> 
> I don't get the reason, why the package doesn't comply to the additional
> Python guidelines…

William should use the python macros defined on the guidelines, as I pointed on
the review.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1529023] Review Request: python-validators - Data Validation in python for Humans

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529023



--- Comment #4 from Björn "besser82" Esser  ---
> - Your License field defines BSD as the package license, but upstream uses
> MIT.
> I had notices that the upstream setup.py file defines the license as BSD,
> but the LICENSE file is MIT.
> I don't have enough knowledge about licensing but this appear
> a bit inconsistent to me.

> [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
>  Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
>  found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (unspecified)", "Unknown or
>  generated", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 48 files have unknown
>  license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
>  /home2/david/rpmbuild/REVISIONS/1529023-python-
>  validators/licensecheck.txt

Well, there is very little difference in these licenses.  On Pypi the package
is distributed as BSD licensed…  That's why I didn't complain about it.

The only real difference between those two licenses is:  BSD *requires* you to
redistribute the license file, MIT does not (It just recommends 'shall be' to
do it).

For a Fedora package this difference is not relevant, since we require to
redistribute the license file along with the SRPM and the binary RPMs by our
guidelines.


> [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python

I don't get the reason, why the package doesn't comply to the additional Python
guidelines…

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1529023] Review Request: python-validators - Data Validation in python for Humans

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529023

David Carlos  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ddavidcarlos1...@gmail.com



--- Comment #3 from David Carlos  ---
Hello William,

I will do an unofficial review.

Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

Issues:
=

- Your License field defines BSD as the package license, but upstream uses MIT.
I had notices that the upstream setup.py file defines the license as BSD,
but the LICENSE file is MIT.
I don't have enough knowledge about licensing but this appear
a bit inconsistent to me.

- You can use %{py3_dist}/%{py2_dist} macro on BuildRequires field, instead of
python2-*/python3-* [1].

- You can use %{py3_dist}/%{py2_dist} macro on Requires field, instead of
python2-*/python3-* [1].

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
= 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (unspecified)", "Unknown or
 generated", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 48 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home2/david/rpmbuild/REVISIONS/1529023-python-
 validators/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[?]: 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.
[!]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 4 files.
[!]: 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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]: 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.
[!]: 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 

[Bug 1529023] Review Request: python-validators - Data Validation in python for Humans

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529023



--- Comment #2 from Björn "besser82" Esser  ---
Maybe you could have a look at one of my packages waiting for review in
exchange?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529352
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529593
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529705

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1529023] Review Request: python-validators - Data Validation in python for Humans

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529023

Björn "besser82" Esser  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||besse...@fedoraproject.org
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|besse...@fedoraproject.org
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Björn "besser82" Esser  ---
Package looks good to me, but `%{python3_sitelib}/*`…  You shoudn't greedy-glob
there, since you might own the `__pycache__` directory, which is owned by
python3 itself.

Package APPROVED!

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org