Bug 1285941
Summary: | Review Request: python-flower - A web based tool for monitoring and administrating Celery clusters | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Jeremy Cline <jeremy> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | William Moreno <williamjmorenor> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | package-review, rbarlow, williamjmorenor |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | williamjmorenor:
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: | 2016-01-20 21:54:29 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: | 1286300, 1291007, 1294537 | ||
Bug Blocks: |
Description
Jeremy Cline
2015-11-27 02:43:46 UTC
This app can run as a system service? I mean you can enable it to run at boot time? If yes you MUST provide a unit file to enable systemd to admin the service. Look like you need a mentor, I can take your review request and be your packager mentor, but to take your review request I will request you to run some informal reviews to show how do you understand the Fedora Packaging Guidelines. If you agree to run some informals review as part of your mentoring process just ping me and I will take this review. (In reply to William Moreno from comment #1) > This app can run as a system service? I mean you can enable it to run at > boot time? If yes you MUST provide a unit file to enable systemd to admin > the service. The app does not currently provide a way to run as a system service (as I understand it), but upon reflection I think it would be best to package it with a systemd unit file. > Look like you need a mentor, I can take your review request and be your > packager mentor, but to take your review request I will request you to run > some informal reviews to show how do you understand the Fedora Packaging > Guidelines. Great! I'm more than happy to perform some informal reviews. I'll aim to get a few done over the next week, if that sounds like a reasonable time-line. OK I will take your review request and be your mentor to become a Fedora Packager. I completed an informal review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1286699 I'll see if I can knock a few more out in the next week. I've completed a second informal review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288886 I've completed a third informal review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279104 Based on my new-found knowledge, there are a few things I'd like to update in my own spec file. I hope to finish this up tonight, but it may not happen until the weekend. williamjmorenor's scratch build of python-flower-0.8.3-1.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12142482 OK you have done 3 informals review so here your review, python packages and generally easy to package but who will see in the review than Fedora Packaging Guidelines forces to a high quality packaging even for simple apps, this is the reason because always is better to install from repos than directly from pypi. Package Review ============== 1. [!]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. There is a docs directoty in the tarball than contains a sphinx documentation you need futures sphinx sphinxcontrib-fulltoc and sphinxcontrib-httpdomain check if those BuildRequires are available in Fedora, if not you will need to package thpse firts. Those docs must go in a docs subpackage. Note than the tarball contains a /docs/.build/html directori, you can include this in docs but it is allways prefered remove this files and build the documentations from sources in the rpm build process. 2. Include the AUTHORS and CHANGES files with %doc 3. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Upstream Provides some test than you need to run in %%check, you need to add mock to run the test. 4. [!]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. This app SERVE a web interface so you must provide a unit file (flower.service) 5. [!]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Tarball contains egg info than you must remove in %%prep 6. [!]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. Also need to run a rm -rg *.pyc to remove the python bytecode in the tarball and package only with source python files (.py) rpmbuild will create it owns bite code. 7. [!]: Package does not generate any conflict. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. You have a colition in %{_bindir} when you install flower with python2 this create a executable named flower, then you install with python3 and this owerwrite the flower executable, then you include de python3 flower executable in the python2 subpackage, this create than the flower executable in the python2 package have a python3 shebang so the python2 package requires python3 and will not work if the python3 subpackage ins't installed. python2-flower (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 You need to install with python2 and rename the flower executable to flower-py2 then install with python3 and in %files do: %files -n python2-%{srcname} %{_bindir}/%{srcname}-py2 %files -n python3-%{srcname} %{_bindir}/%{srcname} 8. rpmlint is unhappy about the missing man pages for the executables files in bindir, you can use sphinx to build a manpage and include it in the package. ====== Try to fix those issues as part as your packaging learning, a really good wait to learn if looking at others spec files in Fedora PKGDB, if you need help to fix some of those issues just ping me. ====== ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [Pass]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [Pass]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [Pass]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [Pass]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [Pass]: Changelog in prescribed format. [NA]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [NA]: Development files must be in a -devel package [Pass]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [Pass]: Package consistently uses macros [Pass]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [Pass]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [NA]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [Pass]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [Pass]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [Pass]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [Pass]: Package installs properly. [Pass]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. [Pass]: 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. [Pass]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [Pass]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [Pass]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [Pass]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [Pass]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [Pass]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [Pass]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [Pass]: Dist tag is present. [Pass]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [Pass]: Permissions on files are set properly. [Pass]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [Pass]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [Pass]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [Pass]: Package is not relocatable. [Pass]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [Pass]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [Pass]: File names are valid UTF-8. [Pass]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [Pass]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [Pass]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [Pass]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [NA]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [Pass]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [NA]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: Package functions as described. [Pass]: Latest version is packaged. [Pass]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [NA]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [Pass]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [Pass]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [Pass]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [Pass]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [Pass]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [Pass]: Buildroot is not present [Pass]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [Pass]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [Pass]: SourceX is a working URL. [Pass]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [Pass]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. [Pass]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python2-flower-0.8.3-1.fc23.noarch.rpm python3-flower-0.8.3-1.fc23.noarch.rpm python-flower-0.8.3-1.fc23.src.rpm python2-flower.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary flower python3-flower.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary flower 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-flower.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary flower python2-flower.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary flower 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- python3-flower (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3-babel python3-celery python3-pytz python3-tornado python2-flower (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python-babel python-celery python-tornado pytz Provides -------- python3-flower: python3-flower python2-flower: python-flower python2-flower Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/f/flower/flower-0.8.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ca6ae26361e58491d51eaded0ee7134087f4ea3cdd00ac158d903dc02dd0e85b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ca6ae26361e58491d51eaded0ee7134087f4ea3cdd00ac158d903dc02dd0e85b Thanks William! I've got a lot to fix here, but sphinxcontrib-fulltoc isn't packaged for Fedora, so I've started by submitting a review request for it[0]. [0] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1291007 Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jeremycline/python-flower-packaging/master/python-flower.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/jeremycline/python-flower-packaging/raw/master/python-flower-0.8.3-2.fc23.src.rpm Updated based on review: - I decided to remove Python 2 support, since I currently only plan to package this for Fedora 23+. - Included man pages - Separate doc package (built from source) - prep cleanup - The tests are now run - A systemd service unit is included williamjmorenor's scratch build of python-flower-0.8.3-2.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12335113 There is a issue instaling python2-sphinx, it was reported, you can wait until the issue is fixed or build the package without the docs. I hope the issue will be fixed soon. jcline's scratch build of python-flower-0.8.3-2.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12344430 jcline's scratch build of python-flower-0.8.3-2.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12346105 jcline's scratch build of python-flower-0.8.3-2.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12346135 jcline's scratch build of python-flower-0.8.3-2.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12346273 Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jeremycline/python-flower-packaging/master/python-flower.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/jeremycline/python-flower-packaging/raw/master/python-flower-0.8.3-3.fc23.src.rpm Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12346521 Updated build dependencies so the tests don't try to pip install anything. Package Review ============== 1. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /etc/flower [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /etc/flower [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/flower 2. Looks like there some files with a /usr/bin/python sheban than make python3-flower requires both python2(abi) and python3. 3. Upstream provides a Dockerfile, Vagrantfile and a ansible playbook than can be good to include in this package, also do not forget to send the unit file to upstream, apen a pull request and link the pull request in the spec. ===== 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. [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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. [!]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: 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. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-flower-0.8.3-3.fc24.noarch.rpm python-flower-doc-0.8.3-3.fc24.noarch.rpm python-flower-0.8.3-3.fc24.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No existe el fichero o el directorio 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- python-flower-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python3-flower (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 config(python3-flower) python(abi) python3-babel python3-celery python3-pytz python3-tornado systemd Provides -------- python-flower-doc: python-flower-doc python3-flower: config(python3-flower) python3-flower Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/f/flower/flower-0.8.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ca6ae26361e58491d51eaded0ee7134087f4ea3cdd00ac158d903dc02dd0e85b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ca6ae26361e58491d51eaded0ee7134087f4ea3cdd00ac158d903dc02dd0e85b jcline's scratch build of python-flower-0.8.3-4.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12363484 Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jeremycline/python-flower-packaging/master/python-flower.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/jeremycline/python-flower-packaging/raw/master/python-flower-0.8.3-4.fc23.src.rpm Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12363484 I've patched the /usr/bin/python shebang. I don't believe we should include the Dockerfile, Vagrantfile, or the Ansible playbooks. Those are for developers and not users. Finally, I don't believe it is appropriate to contribute the service file upstream as it has paths in it that are distro dependent and upstream itself wouldn't distribute it. Hello William! I wanted to chime in and say that I also don't think the Dockerfile, Vagrantfile, or Ansible code belong in the RPM package. I'd love to see this package get approved so I can use it on my dev box. Packaged Aproved ================ Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/python-flower python-flower-0.8.3-4.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-6a09ffb1a8 python-flower-0.8.3-4.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-6a09ffb1a8 python-flower-0.8.3-5.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3a0ac4971c python-flower-0.8.3-5.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3a0ac4971c python-flower-0.8.3-5.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |