Bug 1189460

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable

Issues:
=======
See [!] below.


===== 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.
[!]: 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 %doc.
- LICENSE file not included

[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
- unowned /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/dock

[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
     supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
- W: spelling-error %description -l en_US infrastrucutre -> infrastructure
- E: description-line-too-long C Simple python library with command line ...
- E: non-executable-script /usr/share/dock/images/privileged-builder/docker.sh 0644L /bin/bash
- Can you comment (in spec) why there's dock.tar.gz shipped ?
- Group tag as optional

[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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist
[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
BuildRequires:  python-devel ->  python2-devel or python3-devel
%{__python}  ->  %{__python2} or %{__python3}
%{python_sitelib}  ->  %{python2_sitelib} or %{python3_sitelib}

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

Spec and srpm updated. Added python 3 package (which may be problematic: there are no python 3 builds of GitPython and koji)

s/%doc LICENSE/%license LICENSE/

Please comment (in spec) why
/usr/share/dock/images/privileged-builder/docker.sh
is not executable and why there's dock.tar.gz shipped ?


(In reply to Tomas Tomecek from comment #2)
> Spec and srpm updated.

Next time please bump Release tag.

> Added python 3 package

partially ;-)

You're missing:

%prep
%if 0%{?with_python3}
rm -rf %{py3dir}
cp -a . %{py3dir}
find %{py3dir} -name '*.py' | xargs sed -i '1s|^#!python|#!%{__python3}|'
%endif # with_python3

%build
%if 0%{?with_python3}
pushd %{py3dir}
%{__python3} setup.py build
popd
%endif # with_python3

%install
%if 0%{?with_python3}
pushd %{py3dir}
%{__python3} setup.py install --skip-build --root %{buildroot}
popd
%endif # with_python3

then use
%{python2_sitelib}
in %files
and
%{python2_sitelib}
in
%files -n python3-dock

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Guidelines

>(which may be problematic: there are no python 3 builds of GitPython and koji)

Then don't define with_python3 until there are python3 versions of GitPython & koji.

(In reply to Jiri Popelka from comment #3)
> %{python2_sitelib} in %files -n python3-dock

s/%{python2_sitelib}/%{python3_sitelib}/

Oh, now I remember why I hated packaging. Will respin tomorrow.

(I commented wrt dock.tar.gz within spec, not at files section)

(In reply to Jiri Popelka from comment #3)
> s/%doc LICENSE/%license LICENSE/

done

> Please comment (in spec) why
> /usr/share/dock/images/privileged-builder/docker.sh
> is not executable and why there's dock.tar.gz shipped ?

done

> (In reply to Tomas Tomecek from comment #2)
> > Spec and srpm updated.
> 
> Next time please bump Release tag.

Wanted to have nice -1 release as initial release :(

> > Added python 3 package
> 
> partially ;-)
> 
> You're missing:
> 
> %prep
> %if 0%{?with_python3}
> rm -rf %{py3dir}
> cp -a . %{py3dir}
> find %{py3dir} -name '*.py' | xargs sed -i '1s|^#!python|#!%{__python3}|'
> %endif # with_python3
> 
> %build
> %if 0%{?with_python3}
> pushd %{py3dir}
> %{__python3} setup.py build
> popd
> %endif # with_python3
> 
> %install
> %if 0%{?with_python3}
> pushd %{py3dir}
> %{__python3} setup.py install --skip-build --root %{buildroot}
> popd
> %endif # with_python3
> 
> then use
> %{python2_sitelib}
> in %files
> and
> %{python2_sitelib}
> in
> %files -n python3-dock
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Guidelines

done

> >(which may be problematic: there are no python 3 builds of GitPython and koji)
> 
> Then don't define with_python3 until there are python3 versions of GitPython
> & koji.

done


Thanks a lot!

https://ttomecek.fedorapeople.org/dock-1.0.0-2.fc21.src.rpm
https://ttomecek.fedorapeople.org/dock.spec

(In reply to Tomas Tomecek from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jiri Popelka from comment #3)
> > s/%doc LICENSE/%license LICENSE/
> 
> done

There's one other occurrence, but that's not a blocker.
 
> https://ttomecek.fedorapeople.org/dock-1.0.0-2.fc21.src.rpm
> https://ttomecek.fedorapeople.org/dock.spec

Looks OK now, so the packages is Approved.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: dock
Short Description: Improved builder for Docker images
Upstream URL: https://github.com/DBuildService/dock
Owners: ttomecek
Branches: f21 f22 epel7
InitialCC: ttomecek

Git done (by process-git-requests).

dock-1.1.0-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dock-1.1.0-1.fc21

dock-1.1.0-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository.

dock-1.1.0-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.