[Bug 1433757] Review Request: python-glyphsLib - A bridge from Glyphs source files to UFOs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433757

Shawn Starr  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||shawn.st...@rogers.com



--- Comment #15 from Shawn Starr  ---
Built for rawhide also now

-- 
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 1433757] Review Request: python-glyphsLib - A bridge from Glyphs source files to UFOs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433757

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2017-07-24 15:21:45



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-glyphsLib-1.7.5-2.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 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 1433757] Review Request: python-glyphsLib - A bridge from Glyphs source files to UFOs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433757

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-glyphsLib-1.7.5-2.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 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-2017-c4dc487a1e

-- 
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 1433757] Review Request: python-glyphsLib - A bridge from Glyphs source files to UFOs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433757



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-glyphsLib-1.7.5-2.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-c4dc487a1e

-- 
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 1433757] Review Request: python-glyphsLib - A bridge from Glyphs source files to UFOs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433757

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |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 1433757] Review Request: python-glyphsLib - A bridge from Glyphs source files to UFOs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433757



--- Comment #11 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-glyphsLib

-- 
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 1433757] Review Request: python-glyphsLib - A bridge from Glyphs source files to UFOs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433757



--- Comment #10 from Athos Ribeiro  ---
Thank you for the review, Fabio and Elliott!

-- 
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 1433757] Review Request: python-glyphsLib - A bridge from Glyphs source files to UFOs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433757

Fabio Valentini  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #9 from Fabio Valentini  ---
I don't particularly care whether you use the github or pypi sources, but since
there's no reason to use the pypi ones, "official" github sources are the way
to go IMO.

Only issue I had with this package (shebangs) has been resolved, so approving.

-- 
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 1433757] Review Request: python-glyphsLib - A bridge from Glyphs source files to UFOs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433757



--- Comment #8 from Athos Ribeiro  ---
Hi Fabio,

Thanks for the revoew. Sorry for not running rpmlint before submitting the
package for review.

I am applying a patch to remove the shebangs, as suggested. I also opened a PR
upstream to remove them, which was already merged [1]

Elliot, thanks for the link! Again, if you guys think I should for some reason,
I would not oppose to change the URLs to fetch sources from pypi (although I
always see packagers with conflicting opinions here for python packages).

Here are the new sources:

Spec URL: https://athoscr.fedorapeople.org/packaging/python-glyphsLib.spec
SRPM URL:
https://athoscr.fedorapeople.org/packaging/python-glyphsLib-1.7.5-2.fc25.src.rpm

This is the rpmlint output now [2]

[1] https://github.com/googlei18n/glyphsLib/pull/198


[2]
python2-glyphsLib.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US glyphs ->
glyph, glyph s
python3-glyphsLib.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US glyphs ->
glyph, glyph s
python3-glyphsLib.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary glyphs2ufo
python-glyphsLib.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US glyphs -> glyph,
glyph s
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

-- 
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 1433757] Review Request: python-glyphsLib - A bridge from Glyphs source files to UFOs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433757



--- Comment #7 from Fabio Valentini  ---
Package Review
==

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


=   ISSUES   =

__init__.py and __main__.py contain a python shebang (in the case of
python3-glyphsLib, even the wrong one) - see rpmlint output. You might want to
patch those two files to remove the shebangs in those two files.

(It seems the %python_provide macro is doing case-insentive stuff, but
there's nothing we can do about that (see Provides lists below).)

Besides the one issue I pointed out, the package looks good.


= 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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of 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]: 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.
[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.
[-]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[?]: 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.
[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 

[Bug 1433757] Review Request: python-glyphsLib - A bridge from Glyphs source files to UFOs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433757



--- Comment #6 from Elliott Sales de Andrade  ---
A non-random URL can be done like:
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/g/%{srcname}/%{srcname}-%{version}.tar.gz

-- 
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 1433757] Review Request: python-glyphsLib - A bridge from Glyphs source files to UFOs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433757



--- Comment #5 from Athos Ribeiro  ---
Thank you Elliot and Fabio :)

- I believe that when pypi started providing random URLs only, python packagers
started preferring to fetch sources from github. Since this new pypi.org seems
to be a 'pre-production' instance, I would rather fetch sources from github,
since there are tags in upstream repositories. I will switch to pypi if needed,
though :)

- Project name changed. I do prefer to use them just like upstream, but some
reviewers do complain about cammelcases :(

- Package updated! 

Spec URL: https://athoscr.fedorapeople.org/packaging/python-glyphsLib.spec
SRPM URL:
https://athoscr.fedorapeople.org/packaging/python-glyphsLib-1.7.5-1.fc25.src.rpm

-- 
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 1433757] Review Request: python-glyphsLib - A bridge from Glyphs source files to UFOs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433757

Athos Ribeiro  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: |Review Request:
   |python-glyphslib - A bridge |python-glyphsLib - A bridge
   |from Glyphs source files to |from Glyphs source files to
   |UFOs|UFOs



-- 
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 1433757] Review Request: python-glyphslib - A bridge from Glyphs source files to UFOs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433757



--- Comment #4 from Fabio Valentini  ---
A few initial remarks:
- Is there a reason you're using the tarball from github, not pypi?
- The upstream name for the project and python package is "glyphsLib" - as long
as there isn't a good reason for not doing so, stick to it for your package (->
python-glyphsLib; no need for a separate %{pkgname}).
- The latest version is 1.7.5, your packaging is for version 1.6.0 - please
update.

-- 
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 1433757] Review Request: python-glyphslib - A bridge from Glyphs source files to UFOs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433757

Fabio Valentini  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||decatho...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|decatho...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #3 from Fabio Valentini  ---
Taking this 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 1433757] Review Request: python-glyphslib - A bridge from Glyphs source files to UFOs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433757

Elliott Sales de Andrade  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||quantum.anal...@gmail.com



--- Comment #2 from Elliott Sales de Andrade  ---
This is not a formal review. I did not have any chance to test out that
this works, but the tests pass. This is not the latest version of the
package and there are a few minor rpmlint issues below.


Package Review
==

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



= 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache
 (v2.0)". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in 1433757-python-glyphslib/licensecheck.txt
 * glyphsLib-1.6.0/Lib/glyphsLib/glyphdata_generated.py - this is MIT
license though licensecheck can't figure that out.
 * glyphsLib-1.6.0/tests/data/*.designspace - I'm not sure whether the ASL
could apply to these XML-like files
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.6/site-
 packages, /usr/lib/python3.6
[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.
[?]: 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]: 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.
[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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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.
[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.
[!]: Final 

[Bug 1433757] Review Request: python-glyphslib - A bridge from Glyphs source files to UFOs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433757
Bug 1433757 depends on bug 1433744, which changed state.

Bug 1433744 Summary: Review Request: python-mutatormath - Python library for 
piecewise linear interpolation in multiple dimensions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433744

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA



-- 
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 1433757] Review Request: python-glyphslib - A bridge from Glyphs source files to UFOs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433757

Athos Ribeiro  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1441023




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1441023
[Bug 1441023] Review Request: python-fontmake - Compile fonts from sources
to binary
-- 
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 1433757] Review Request: python-glyphslib - A bridge from Glyphs source files to UFOs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433757



--- Comment #1 from Athos Ribeiro  ---
Version update:

Spec URL: https://athoscr.fedorapeople.org/packaging/python-glyphslib.spec
SRPM URL:
https://athoscr.fedorapeople.org/packaging/python-glyphslib-1.6.0-1.fc25.src.rpm

-- 
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 1433757] Review Request: python-glyphslib - A bridge from Glyphs source files to UFOs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433757
Bug 1433757 depends on bug 1433626, which changed state.

Bug 1433626 Summary: Review Request: python-defcon - A set of flexible objects 
for representing UFO data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433626

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA



-- 
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 1433757] Review Request: python-glyphslib - A bridge from Glyphs source files to UFOs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433757

Athos Ribeiro  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1433626, 1433744




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433626
[Bug 1433626] Review Request: python-defcon - A set of flexible objects for
representing UFO data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433744
[Bug 1433744] Review Request: python-mutatormath - Python library for
piecewise linear interpolation in multiple dimensions
-- 
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