[Bug 1981978] Review Request: sip6 - SIP - Python/C++ Bindings Generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981978
--- Comment #8 from Scott Talbert ---
(In reply to woodhead from comment #7)
> suggestion: I would like to share a incompatible point between sip6 and sip5
> according to my usage of sip5 and sip6 on fc35.
> For example, the `enum DataType{ intType, floatType }' defined in a C++
> namespace, say `foo'. The enum's elements are mapped to a global python
> object named `foo', with sip5. And you can use foo.intType in python. While
> with sip6, such a usage is invalid in python, and you have to use
> foo.DataType.intType to refer to the same value. It seems not select-able
> between the two fashions in sip6.
It's probably best to take your concern upstream (the PyQt mailing list is
probably the best place):
https://www.riverbankcomputing.com/mailman/listinfo/pyqt
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981978
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1981978] Review Request: sip6 - SIP - Python/C++ Bindings Generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981978
woodhead changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||woodhea...@yahoo.com
--- Comment #7 from woodhead ---
suggestion: I would like to share a incompatible point between sip6 and sip5
according to my usage of sip5 and sip6 on fc35.
For example, the `enum DataType{ intType, floatType }' defined in a C++
namespace, say `foo'. The enum's elements are mapped to a global python object
named `foo', with sip5. And you can use foo.intType in python. While with sip6,
such a usage is invalid in python, and you have to use foo.DataType.intType to
refer to the same value. It seems not select-able between the two fashions in
sip6.
--
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981978
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1981978] Review Request: sip6 - SIP - Python/C++ Bindings Generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981978 Scott Talbert changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2021-07-21 13:30:11 -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1981978] Review Request: sip6 - SIP - Python/C++ Bindings Generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981978 --- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/sip6 -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1981978] Review Request: sip6 - SIP - Python/C++ Bindings Generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981978 --- Comment #5 from Scott Talbert --- (In reply to Jerry James from comment #4) > Looks good. This package is APPROVED. Miro just barely submitted updates > for F33 and F34 to make %py3_check_import available, so that %check script > will only work on Rawhide until those updates go stable. Thanks, I intend to only send this to Rawhide anyway. -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1981978] Review Request: sip6 - SIP - Python/C++ Bindings Generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981978 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Jerry James --- Looks good. This package is APPROVED. Miro just barely submitted updates for F33 and F34 to make %py3_check_import available, so that %check script will only work on Rawhide until those updates go stable. -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1981978] Review Request: sip6 - SIP - Python/C++ Bindings Generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981978 --- Comment #3 from Scott Talbert --- (In reply to Jerry James from comment #2) > Issues: > === > - Since this package is intended to replace the sip5 package, shouldn't it > have > Obsoletes and Provides for sip5? > > - Please add a comment explaining the patch (a SHOULD item) > > - If no other form of testing makes sense (such as building the examples), > then > this is now possible in Rawhide: > > %check > %py3_check_import sipbuild sipbuild.distinfo sipbuild.module sipbuild.tools Thanks for the review and comments. I have addressed all of these. I had thought about the Obsoletes and Provides for sip5 before but omitted them because all the users of sip5 (I believe) declare their dependencies using the python3dist(sip) name. But it can't hurt to add them anyway just so it's clear to everyone. Ideally this package should be just an update under the 'sip' name (and perhaps rename the existing package to sip4) but it seems like this was the easier route given that a lot of the legacy stuff uses the sip name. -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1981978] Review Request: sip6 - SIP - Python/C++ Bindings Generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981978
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- Since this package is intended to replace the sip5 package, shouldn't it have
Obsoletes and Provides for sip5?
- Please add a comment explaining the patch (a SHOULD item)
- If no other form of testing makes sense (such as building the examples), then
this is now possible in Rawhide:
%check
%py3_check_import sipbuild sipbuild.distinfo sipbuild.module sipbuild.tools
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib64/python3.10/site-
packages/sipbuild(sip5), /usr/lib64/python3.10/site-
packages/sipbuild/__pycache__(sip5), /usr/lib64/python3.10/site-
packages/sipbuild/distinfo(sip5), /usr/lib64/python3.10/site-
packages/sipbuild/distinfo/__pycache__(sip5),
/usr/lib64/python3.10/site-packages/sipbuild/module(sip5),
/usr/lib64/python3.10/site-packages/sipbuild/module/__pycache__(sip5),
/usr/lib64/python3.10/site-packages/sipbuild/module/source(sip5),
/usr/lib64/python3.10/site-packages/sipbuild/module/source/12.7(sip5),
/usr/lib64/python3.10/site-packages/sipbuild/module/source/12.8(sip5),
/usr/lib64/python3.10/site-packages/sipbuild/tools(sip5),
/usr/lib64/python3.10/site-packages/sipbuild/tools/__pycache__(sip5)
This is okay since the intention is to retire the sip5 package.
[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.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
There are development files in a non-devel package, but that's because
sip6
is inherently a development 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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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 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 pa
[Bug 1981978] Review Request: sip6 - SIP - Python/C++ Bindings Generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981978 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||loganje...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jerry James --- I will take 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
