Bug 1418396

Why python- prefix?

Well some of the fedmsg consumers use the prefix (https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-fedbadges/) and some don't (https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/github2fedmsg/). I'm not sure which is more appropriate and I don't really have a strong preference. I assumed that most things that just provide a Python module and aren't meant to be used as freestanding applications got the python- prefix. I thought this was documented somewhere, but I can't seem to find it so I might have just made that up.

(In reply to Jeremy Cline from comment #2)
> Well some of the fedmsg consumers use the prefix
> (https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-fedbadges/) and
> some don't
> (https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/github2fedmsg/). I'm not
> sure which is more appropriate and I don't really have a strong preference.
> I assumed that most things that just provide a Python module and aren't
> meant to be used as freestanding applications got the python- prefix. I
> thought this was documented somewhere, but I can't seem to find it so I
> might have just made that up.
Yeah, basically if package provides module and it's supposed to be used (I mean `import foo`), then it should be python-. If it's just standalone application (isn't the-new-hotness like this?) - then without.

the-new-hotness needs fedmsg to run it (it declares a moksha.consumer entry point in its setup.py which is how fedmsg finds it) so it's not standalone, exactly. On the other hand, I don't really see people importing it. Given that, maybe getting rid of the prefix makes the most sense.

When I don't have the prefix on the package name, is it still acceptable to produce binary packages called python2-the-new-hotness and python3-the-new-hotness?

(In reply to Jeremy Cline from comment #4)
> the-new-hotness needs fedmsg to run it (it declares a moksha.consumer entry
> point in its setup.py which is how fedmsg finds it) so it's not standalone,
> exactly. On the other hand, I don't really see people importing it. Given
> that, maybe getting rid of the prefix makes the most sense.
Yeah, let's get rid out of prefix.

(In reply to Jeremy Cline from comment #5)
> When I don't have the prefix on the package name, is it still acceptable to
> produce binary packages called python2-the-new-hotness and
> python3-the-new-hotness?
why would you do this? why not to put everything in main package and don't create subpackages?

Okay, I've removed the prefix

SRPM URL: https://jcline.fedorapeople.org/the-new-hotness-0.8.0-1.fc25.src.rpm
Spec URL: https://jcline.fedorapeople.org/the-new-hotness.spec

Updated to latest upstream


SRPM URL: https://jcline.fedorapeople.org/the-new-hotness-0.8.1-1.fc27.src.rpm
Spec URL: https://jcline.fedorapeople.org/the-new-hotness.spec

I'll take it for review…

From having a quick look over the spec file:

 * Group tag is obsolete since el6.  I'd suggest removal.

 * It's better to use %make_build instead of make %{?_smp_mflags}.

 * %autosetup -p1 -n %{name}-%{version}:  You can omit ' -n %{name}-%{version}'.

 * %{python2_sitelib}/*:  Simply globbing the whole contents of this subdir
   usualy isn't a good idea…  It's better to explicitly name the single dirs
   or files being dropped there;  this is especially important when converting
   a package to python3 later.


I'll run f-r in the meantime.

Created attachment 1284493 [details]
licensecheck from fedora-review

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

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


===== 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)",
     "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 29 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck is attached.

     ---> Some of the (installed) sources are licensed GPLv2+, which is not
          reflected by the License tag.

[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.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines

     ---> Severe issues in License tag are present

[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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in the-new-
     hotness-doc

     ---> doc-pkg is fine to be standalone.

[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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.

     ---> Package is noarch.

[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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: the-new-hotness-0.8.1-1.fc27.noarch.rpm
          the-new-hotness-doc-0.8.1-1.fc27.noarch.rpm
          the-new-hotness-0.8.1-1.fc27.src.rpm
the-new-hotness.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bugzilla -> Bugzilla
the-new-hotness.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Fedmsg -> Feds
the-new-hotness.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bugzilla -> Bugzilla
the-new-hotness-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/the-new-hotness-doc/html/.nojekyll
the-new-hotness-doc.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/the-new-hotness-doc/html/.nojekyll
the-new-hotness.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bugzilla -> Bugzilla
the-new-hotness.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Fedmsg -> Feds
the-new-hotness.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bugzilla -> Bugzilla
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 7 warnings.


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
the-new-hotness.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bugzilla -> Bugzilla
the-new-hotness.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Fedmsg -> Feds
the-new-hotness.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bugzilla -> Bugzilla
the-new-hotness-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/the-new-hotness-doc/html/.nojekyll
the-new-hotness-doc.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/the-new-hotness-doc/html/.nojekyll
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.

---> You should remove that .nojekyll file from built html-docs.


Requires
--------
the-new-hotness (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    fedmsg
    git
    koji
    python(abi)
    python-bugzilla
    python-dogpile-cache
    python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure
    python-rpm
    python-six
    rpmdevtools

the-new-hotness-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


Provides
--------
the-new-hotness:
    python2.7dist(the-new-hotness)
    python2dist(the-new-hotness)
    the-new-hotness

the-new-hotness-doc:
    the-new-hotness-doc


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/fedora-infra/the-new-hotness/archive/0.8.1/the-new-hotness-0.8.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : bb99ef701166b32001895fa5d1fd3fafaa87b70e589393164fd0e5fc9835a97c
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bb99ef701166b32001895fa5d1fd3fafaa87b70e589393164fd0e5fc9835a97c


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1418396 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -o --no-bootstrap-chroot --no-cleanup-after --no-clean
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


===== Solution =====

NOT approved, because a severe issue is present.  Please fix this an I'll have another review.

Thanks for the review, I've addressed the issues.

SRPM URL: https://jcline.fedorapeople.org/the-new-hotness-0.8.1-2.fc27.src.rpm
Spec URL: https://jcline.fedorapeople.org/the-new-hotness.spec

Package LGTM now!

One suggestion:

 * I'd use
   %{python2_sitelib}/the_new_hotness-%{version}-py%{python2_version}.egg-info
   instead of globbing %{python2_sitelib}/the_new_hotness-*.egg-info
   You are free whether to change this or not during import.


===== Solution =====

Package APPROVED!

Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/the-new-hotness

This was imported, and even retired after that. Please close your Review Requests when they're imported.