Bug 1542522 (jsonnet)
Summary: | Review Request: jsonnet - a data templating language | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Naadir Jeewa <naadir> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | William Moreno <williamjmorenor> |
Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora, itamar, naadir, package-review, spasquie, williamjmorenor, zebob.m |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | williamjmorenor:
fedora-review?
|
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
URL: | https://github.com/google/jsonnet | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2019-11-13 06:57:35 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: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 177841 |
Description
Naadir Jeewa
2018-02-06 13:56:46 UTC
>Group: Development/Languages The Group: tag is not used in Fedora. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections >License: Apache-2.0 The correct identifier for the Apache Software Licence v.2.0 in Fedora is "ASL 2.0". https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses >%package devel As a general rule, devel packages should have a "Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}"; this ensures that you can't install devel headers for a different version of the library than the .so files provide. >%package lib Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the preferred way is to have "libSOMETHING", like "%package -n libjsonnet". The development headers would then become "%package -n libjsonnet-devel". >%if 0%{?fedora} >= 21 >%package python3 Seeing how Fedora 25 has been put to its grave almost two months ago, this conditional can be removed. >%{__make} It is preferred to use non-macro forms of system executables. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Macros You should also include the licence text in the packages, by putting the following in %files: "%license LICENSE" https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text Updated SRPM / Spec as per comments: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/randomvariable/jsonnet/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00713419-jsonnet/jsonnet-0.9.5-3.src.rpm https://github.com/randomvariable/jsonnet-rpm/blob/master/jsonnet.spec >%if 0%{?rhel} >Group: Development/Languages >%endif Sorry, I should have been more clear. Drop this completely. The Group: tag is not used in EPEL, either. >License: Apache-2.0 Still not fixed. See my content above. >install -m 0555 -s ./jsonnet $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir} >install -m 0444 ./include/* $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_includedir} >install -m 0444 -s ./lib%{name}.so $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir} The default is to make all things writable by root, so this should probably be 0755 and 0644 (unless you have a good reason). Also, looking at /usr/lib on my system - libraries are usually installed with 755, not 644. Regarding the licence: you should make sure that the licence text is present if the user installs any combination of packages. Currently the licence is present only in the main package. The lib package can be installed independently of the main package, so it should contain a copy of the licence text. The -devel and -python packages Require the lib package, so they don't need their own copy. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing > Sorry, I should have been more clear. Drop this completely. The Group: tag is not used in EPEL, either. I wasn't sure from the docs, so took a guess. >>License: Apache-2.0 > Still not fixed. See my content above. Sorry, missed that one. > The default is to make all things writable by root, so this should probably be > 0755 and 0644 (unless you have a good reason). Also, looking at /usr/lib on my > system - libraries are usually installed with 755, not 644. Amended > make sure that the licence text is present if the user installs any combination of packages Amended https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/randomvariable/jsonnet/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00714576-jsonnet/jsonnet.spec https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/randomvariable/jsonnet/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00714576-jsonnet/jsonnet-0.9.5-4.src.rpm Thanks for your time on this so far. Naadir Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/randomvariable/jsonnet/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00714576-jsonnet/jsonnet.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/randomvariable/jsonnet/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00714576-jsonnet/jsonnet-0.9.5-4.src.rpm Just a quit "eye ball" checking: The main package jsonnet must Requires: libjsonnet, In the other side you not following python packaging names conventios names are: python2-jsonnet python3-jsonet Do we realley need a devel subpackage? you don't need that %if 0%{?rhel} just use BuildRequires: python2-setuptools and it will work on rhel too. instead of BuildRequires: python3-devel use python%{python3_pkgversion}-devel instead of %if 0%{?fedora} %files -n lib%{name}-python3 %{python3_sitearch}/* %endif use %files -n lib%{name}-python%{python3_pkgversion} %{python3_sitearch}/* instead of %package -n lib%{name}-python3 use %package -n lib%{name}-python%{python3_pkgversion} Any update here? If not I will need to close this ticket as a DEADREVIEW Final ping |