Bug 1020096 (python-blosc)
Summary: | Review Request: python-blosc - Python wrapper for the blosc high performance compressor | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Thibault North <thibault.north> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Christopher Meng <i> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | besser82, i, notting, package-review, zbyszek |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | i:
fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | python-blosc-1.1-7.fc20 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2013-12-14 02:57:42 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | 1020088 | ||
Bug Blocks: |
Description
Thibault North
2013-10-17 02:12:14 UTC
0.I think %{?filter_setup: %filter_provides_in %{python_sitearch}/.*\.so$ %filter_setup} is the old style, please take a look at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering 1.http://blosc.org/ is its homepage. 2.I would suggest this style: License: MIT URL: https://github.com/FrancescAlted/python-blosc/wiki Source0: https://github.com/FrancescAlted/%{name}/archive/Release-%{version}.tar.gz instead of yours: Source0: https://github.com/FrancescAlted/%{name}/archive/Release-1.1.tar.gz License: MIT URL: https://github.com/FrancescAlted/python-blosc/wiki BTW can you ask upstream to release in %{name}-%{version} style tarball name? Or you can use PYPI: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/blosc to get the tarball. 3.BuildRequires: python-devel blosc-devel Requires: blosc%{?_isa} Should be: BuildRequires: python2-devel python-setuptools blosc-devel No explicit Requires: blosc%{?_isa} unless RPM can't find it. 4.%build python setup.py build --> %{__python2} setup.py build 5.%install rm -rf %{buildroot} python setup.py install -O1 --skip-build --root=%{buildroot} --> %{__python2} setup.py install --prefix=%{_prefix} -O1 --skip-build --root=%{buildroot} 6.I don't agree with shipping VERSION file as %doc, nonsense. 7.%{python_sitearch} --> %{python2_sitearch} ---------- Above comments are generated before fedora-review, please modify and submit a new version, then let's run the review. Sorry, typo. Its URL is: http://blosc.pydata.org OR https://github.com/FrancescAlted/python-blosc as described on its github page. Another note is that filtering out python sitearch libs is not required from Fedora 20, you don't need to do this anymore. I suggest that you should remove this in master branch in SCM, but leave it in f19-/EPEL. Thanks for your comments. It's been a long time since the last review request, so I am not that up to date anymore. (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #1) > 0.I think > > %{?filter_setup: > %filter_provides_in %{python_sitearch}/.*\.so$ > %filter_setup} > > is the old style, please take a look at: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering Is that a proper fix? %global __provides_filter_from ^%{python_sitearch}/.*\.so$ > 1.http://blosc.org/ is its homepage. Fixed. > 2.I would suggest this style: > > License: MIT > URL: https://github.com/FrancescAlted/python-blosc/wiki > Source0: > https://github.com/FrancescAlted/%{name}/archive/Release-%{version}.tar.gz > [...] > BTW can you ask upstream to release in %{name}-%{version} style tarball I chose the pypi source. Unfortunately, there is no docs in that package. Is that still OK ? > BTW can you ask upstream to release in %{name}-%{version} style tarball > name? Or you can use PYPI: Yes, will do. Items 3-7 are also fixed. RPMlint output: rpmlint -v SRPMS/python-blosc-1.1-3.fc19.src.rpm RPMS/x86_64/python-blosc-1.1-3.fc19.x86_64.rpm RPMS/x86_64/python-blosc-debuginfo-1.1-3.fc19.x86_64.rpm SPECS/python-blosc.spec python-blosc.src: I: checking python-blosc.src: I: checking-url https://github.com/FrancescAlted/python-blosc (timeout 10 seconds) python-blosc.src: I: checking-url https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/b/blosc/blosc-1.1.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) python-blosc.x86_64: I: checking python-blosc.x86_64: I: checking-url https://github.com/FrancescAlted/python-blosc (timeout 10 seconds) python-blosc.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/blosc/blosc_extension.so blosc_extension.so()(64bit) python-blosc.x86_64: W: no-documentation python-blosc-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking python-blosc-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url https://github.com/FrancescAlted/python-blosc (timeout 10 seconds) /home/tnorth/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-blosc.spec: I: checking-url https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/b/blosc/blosc-1.1.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Updated packages: Spec URL: http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/python-blosc-1.1-3.fc19.src.rpm SRPM URL: http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/python-blosc.spec This package depends on blosc, which is also under review, see BZ#1020088 DO NOT CHANGE THE BUG STATUS IF YOU DON'T KNOW. Will review later. (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #5) > DO NOT CHANGE THE BUG STATUS IF YOU DON'T KNOW. > > Will review later. Hey, I didn't want to change that ?! No clue how it happend... sorry for that. I'm not sure if it's the problem of mirrors, but mock can't find blosc now with Error: No Package found for blosc-devel although it's already imported. I will re run the review later, please wait. Thanks. Just clean the cache dir of mock and now it works. Package Review(with cut) ============== 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 ===== MUST items ===== [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-blosc-1.1-3.fc21.i686.rpm python-blosc-1.1-3.fc21.src.rpm python-blosc.i686: W: no-documentation python-blosc.i686: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/blosc/blosc_extension.so 0775L 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-blosc python-blosc.i686: W: no-documentation python-blosc.i686: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/blosc/blosc_extension.so 0775L 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python-blosc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6 libpthread.so.0 libpython2.7.so.1.0 python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- python-blosc: python-blosc python-blosc(x86-32) Unversioned so-files -------------------- python-blosc: /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/blosc/blosc_extension.so Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/b/blosc/blosc-1.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3f521bd2711e259ca8bb85c6bb15085cec75545346935712654f45c48e45e1be CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3f521bd2711e259ca8bb85c6bb15085cec75545346935712654f45c48e45e1be Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -rvn python-blosc-1.1-3.fc19.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG ==================== Please fix the wrong perms issue. And can you find some docs available for packaging?(optional) Nearly approved. (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #8) > [snap] > Issues: > ======= > - Permissions on files are set properly. > Note: See rpmlint output > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions > [snap] > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: python-blosc-1.1-3.fc21.i686.rpm > python-blosc-1.1-3.fc21.src.rpm > python-blosc.i686: W: no-documentation > python-blosc.i686: E: non-standard-executable-perm > /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/blosc/blosc_extension.so 0775L > 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. I don't get that on F19. If the permissions are changed to 0644, the .so file is not stripped (this generates a warning, unstripped-binary-or-object) and the debuginfo package is empty. It looks like .so files in /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ also are 0755. By the way, I feel uncomfortable with the __provides_filter_from thing. I get a private-shared-object-provides on this lib. > And can you find some docs available for packaging?(optional) Not right now, but I will consider writing some since I am a user of this package. Thanks, (In reply to Thibault North from comment #9) > > /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/blosc/blosc_extension.so 0775L > It looks like .so files in /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ also are 0755. Read again... (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #10) > (In reply to Thibault North from comment #9) > > > /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/blosc/blosc_extension.so 0775L > > > It looks like .so files in /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ also are 0775. > > Read again... Excuse me, but this kind of comment is not helpful (nor kind). How much does it cost to write 755 != 775 instead and save time to everyone? Also, it would be nice if you could comment on the private-shared-object-provides thing. Thank you. SRPM URL: http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/python-blosc-1.1-4.fc19.src.rpm SPEC URL: http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/python-blosc.spec (In reply to Thibault North from comment #11) > Excuse me, but this kind of comment is not helpful (nor kind). How much does > it cost to write 755 != 775 instead and save time to everyone? It seems that I'm the people who didn't read carefully... > Also, it would be nice if you could comment on the > private-shared-object-provides thing. Thank you. Rebuild with commented filter line on rawhide, fedora-review is quiet. So from F20 we don't need this anymore, but lower than f20 should have this line. ------------ PACKAGE APPROVED. One suggestion: Between BR and Source tag it has 2 blank lines, you can drop them. (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #12) > Rebuild with commented filter line on rawhide, fedora-review is quiet. > > So from F20 we don't need this anymore, but lower than f20 should have this > line. Ok, thank you very much. > One suggestion: > > Between BR and Source tag it has 2 blank lines, you can drop them. Done. Thanks for the review. SRPM URL: http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/python-blosc-1.1-5.fc19.src.rpm SPEC URL: http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/python-blosc.spec New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-blosc Short Description: Python wrapper for the blosc high performance compressor Owners: tnorth zbyszek Branches: f19 f20 el6 Git done (by process-git-requests). python-blosc-1.1-7.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-blosc-1.1-7.fc20 python-blosc-1.1-7.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository. python-blosc-1.1-7.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: python-blosc New Branches: epel7 Owners: zbyszek tnorth InitialCC: Git done (by process-git-requests). |