Bug 1262644
| Summary: | Review Request: python-Pyped - Replace sed/grep/cut/awk by letting you execute Python one-liners | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | René Ribaud <rene.ribaud> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Julien Enselme <jujens> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | ilya.gradina, jujens, package-review |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | jujens:
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: | 2015-11-30 21:21:36 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
René Ribaud
2015-09-13 20:05:07 UTC
This is an unofficial review of the package. some notes: 1) no tests 2) errors: "non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pyped.py 644 /usr/bin/env" also error for python3.*. 3) no-manual-page-for-binary pyp --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines ===== 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ilgrad/1262644-python- Pyped/licensecheck.txt [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. [ ]: 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. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 2 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]: 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: [ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [ ]: 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. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2-Pyped , python3-Pyped [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: 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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.2.13 starting (python version = 3.4.3)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled dnf cache Start: cleaning dnf metadata Finish: cleaning dnf metadata INFO: enabled ccache Mock Version: 1.2.13 INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.13 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/ilgrad/1262644-python-Pyped/results/python2-Pyped-1.4-1.fc24.noarch.rpm /home/ilgrad/1262644-python-Pyped/results/python3-Pyped-1.4-1.fc24.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 24 install /home/ilgrad/1262644-python-Pyped/results/python2-Pyped-1.4-1.fc24.noarch.rpm /home/ilgrad/1262644-python-Pyped/results/python3-Pyped-1.4-1.fc24.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: python2-Pyped-1.4-1.fc24.noarch.rpm python3-Pyped-1.4-1.fc24.noarch.rpm python-Pyped-1.4-1.fc24.src.rpm python2-Pyped.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sed -> tied, ed, seed python2-Pyped.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) awk -> awl, aw, wk python2-Pyped.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pyped.py 644 /usr/bin/env python2-Pyped.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pyp python3-Pyped.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sed -> tied, ed, seed python3-Pyped.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) awk -> awl, aw, wk python3-Pyped.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/pyped.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3-Pyped.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pyp python-Pyped.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sed -> tied, ed, seed python-Pyped.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) awk -> awl, aw, wk 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 8 warnings. Requires -------- python2-Pyped (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python-arrow python-path python-requests python-six python2-minibelt python3-Pyped (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3-arrow python3-minibelt python3-path python3-requests python3-six Provides -------- python2-Pyped: python-Pyped python2-Pyped python3-Pyped: python3-Pyped Hello, Thanks for reviewing the pkg. Here is a couple of answers about your comments. 1) no tests The upstream package is not provided with unitary tests. I kept the %check section in the spec file to remember me to implement that as soon as upstream will implement some of them. 2) errors: "non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pyped.py 644 /usr/bin/env" also error for python3.*. Unfortunately, I think I submitted this package a bit too early. You can notice that the package depends of minibelt, which is not in the released yet and prevent the package installation. I have a request for it : https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262643 3) no-manual-page-for-binary pyp Unless if I'm wrong there is no manual page provided by upstream yet. So I think this pkg is on old until, minibelt will be integrated into Fedora. - I guess you intended to use the %sum variable - Python3 by default https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Avoiding_collisions_between_the_python_2_and_python_3_stacks - Not sure if your patch is useful - To get rid of the E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/pyped.py 644 /usr/bin/env you should remove the shebang from pyped.py. The typical way to do this is to call sed -i '1{\@^#!/usr/bin/env python@d}' %{buildroot}%{python3_sitearch}/pyped.py in %install (the same for python 2). I will wait for this to be fixed before approving the package. 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. [X]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/1262644-python-Pyped/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 2 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. [X]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [X]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2-Pyped , python3-Pyped [?]: Package functions as described. [X]: Latest version is packaged. [X]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. Not sure that this patch is useful. Not blocking as this works fine with it. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [X]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: 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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python2-Pyped-1.4-1.fc24.noarch.rpm python3-Pyped-1.4-1.fc24.noarch.rpm python-Pyped-1.4-1.fc24.src.rpm python2-Pyped.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sed -> tied, ed, seed python2-Pyped.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) awk -> awl, aw, wk python2-Pyped.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pyped.py 644 /usr/bin/env python2-Pyped.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pyp python3-Pyped.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sed -> tied, ed, seed python3-Pyped.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) awk -> awl, aw, wk python3-Pyped.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/pyped.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3-Pyped.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pyp python-Pyped.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sed -> tied, ed, seed python-Pyped.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) awk -> awl, aw, wk 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 8 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python2-Pyped.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pyped.py 644 /usr/bin/env python2-Pyped.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pyp python3-Pyped.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/pyped.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3-Pyped.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pyp 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- python2-Pyped (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python-arrow python-path python-requests python-six python2-minibelt python3-Pyped (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3-arrow python3-minibelt python3-path python3-requests python3-six Provides -------- python2-Pyped: python-Pyped python2-Pyped python3-Pyped: python3-Pyped Source checksums ---------------- http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/P/Pyped/Pyped-1.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ed458cfec5ef48a2cc2266f82f8c2b35efe5f63cd523612acddac953dd26a8d3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ed458cfec5ef48a2cc2266f82f8c2b35efe5f63cd523612acddac953dd26a8d3 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1262644 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 > - Python3 by default
I hit "save changes" a little fast. You are indeed using python3 by default, but you include the binary twice in python2 package and in python3 package. Since it is design to run with python3, please include it only in the python3 package. I don't think it can work with only the python2 version of the package.
As stated in the guidelines, if the python2 executable behaves differently from the python3 one (which seems likely since it executes python code and python2 and python3 are not entirely compatible) you should provide a pyp-%{python2_version} binary in the python2 package. You can also have a pyp-%{python3_version} symlink to pyp.
To do this, rename the executable `mv %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/pyp %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/pyp-%{python2_version}` before running %py3_install
Hello Julien, >- I guess you intended to use the %sum variable I used it now. >- Python3 by default https://fedoraproject.org wiki/Packaging:Python#Avoiding_collisions_between_the_python_2_and_python_3_stacks Fixed as porposed in the doco. Please tell me if it is fine from your point of view. >- Not sure if your patch is useful Yep otherwise I get an error at build step. >- To get rid of the E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages pyped.py 644 /usr/bin/env you should remove the shebang from pyped.py. The typical way to do this is to call sed -i '1{\@^#!/usr/bin/env python@d}' %{buildroot}%{python3_sitearch}/pyped.py in %install (the same for python 2). I will wait for this to be fixed before approving the package. I have just made the required file executable as it should be run by the user. New packages location : Spec URL: http://uggla.free.fr/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-Pyped.spec SRPM URL: http://uggla.free.fr/rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-Pyped-1.4-2.fc22.src.rpm uggla's scratch build of python-Pyped-1.4-2.fc22.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11756733 I think you should add a line break between each changelog entry to make it more readable. The Python3 subpackage should have the default executable for 22 and above. Looks good. Approved. Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/python-Pyped python-Pyped-1.4-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-c67e5728c9 python-Pyped-1.4-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-8068233338 python-Pyped-1.4-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update python-Pyped' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-8068233338 python-Pyped-1.4-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update python-Pyped' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-c67e5728c9 python-Pyped-1.4-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. python-Pyped-1.4-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |