Bug 1129889
Summary: | Review Request: fig - Punctual, lightweight development environments using Docker | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Adam Miller <admiller> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Christopher Meng <i> |
Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | bkabrda, i, package-review, panemade, roman |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | i:
fedora-review?
|
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2014-09-22 15:57:40 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: |
Description
Adam Miller
2014-08-13 21:21:16 UTC
1. Antiquated lines: %if 0%{?fedora} < 13 %{!?python_sitearch: %global python_sitearch %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib(1))")} %endif 2. Drop Group: Development/Libraries 3. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires (EPEL plz also check: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros) 4. BuildArch? 5. Drop %clean. 6. Drop PKG-INFO MANIFEST.in setup.cfg tox.ini requirements-dev.txt requirements.txt 7. %description too poor, please improve(do not repeat the %summary). 8. URL: http://www.fig.sh/ // Nice domain 9. Not the latest version. 10. Use %{version} in Source URL. 1) Removed. 2) Removed. 3) Fixed. 4) It's a dep on docker.io (docker-io package), it's x86_64-only which is what fig exists to orchestrate so I didn't think it made sense to have fig build/install on other architectures and have it not function. As Docker upstream adds support for other architectures we should be able to add more architectures. 5) Removed. 6) Fixed. 7) Fixed - I think, feedback welcomed if this isn't enough. 8) Fixed. 9) Updated. 10) Fixed, also using %{name} now Spec URL: https://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/fig.spec SRPM URL: https://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/fig-0.5.1-2.fc22.src.rpm Sorry, wrong SRPM in previous comment. Spec URL: https://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/fig.spec SRPM URL: https://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/fig-0.5.2-1.fc22.src.rpm (In reply to Adam Miller from comment #2) > 4) It's a dep on docker.io (docker-io package), it's x86_64-only which is > what fig exists to orchestrate so I didn't think it made sense to have fig > build/install on other architectures and have it not function. As Docker > upstream adds support for other architectures we should be able to add more > architectures. I meant that this package should be noarch. CFLAGS are superfluous here. And you still didn't use the correct *VERSIONED* python macros. Requires: python-setuptools, I'm sure it's a mistake. %if 0%{?with_python3} should be removed from the SPEC. Plus, bundled egg should be dropped before the build. Spec URL: https://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/fig.spec SRPM URL: https://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/fig-0.5.2-2.fc22.src.rpm CFLAGS dropped properly versioned the python macros, sorry for the oversight removed python-setuptools, that should only be a build time requirement removed python3 conditional removed bundled egg in %prep Are you going to put it into EPEL6? If not please %{python_sitelib} -> %{python2_sitelib} https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros I'm mostly on the fence about supporting EPEL6 since I can't do EPEL7 because python-requests is included in RHEL7 proper but is too old and EPEL has a policy about not updating core RHEL packages. For now I'm going to not include the macros and stick only to Fedora for this package. -AdamM It seems that fig bundles python-docker and python-six (see fig/packages). I think you need to either unbundle these or ask FPC for bundling exception. I've decided to look into kubernetes from now on, I thank you for your time to review and I apologize for time lost, but I'm going to focus elsewhere for docker container orchestration. Thank you, -AdamM |