Bug 1861440

Hey Jake. Could you please provide links that go to the actual (raw) content and not HTML pages on github?

Whoops, sorry about that. Here's the raw spec: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/TurboTurtle/rig/master/rig.spec

If you'd prefer I can copy that over to the same location as the srpm.

(In reply to Jake Hunsaker from comment #2)
> Whoops, sorry about that. Here's the raw spec:
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/TurboTurtle/rig/master/rig.spec
> 
> If you'd prefer I can copy that over to the same location as the srpm.

It doesn't really matter where it is located, but please always post the links in this form (for automated downloads):



Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/TurboTurtle/rig/master/rig.spec
SRPM URL: https://people.redhat.com/jhunsake/rig/rig-1.0-1.src.rpm





Spec sanity:

> Summary: Monitor a system for events and trigger specific actions
> Name: rig

Consider putting the name first for better readability.

Consider aligning the values with spaces like this:

Name:           rig
Summary:        Monitor a system for events and trigger specific actions

> Release: 1

This is missing the dist tag, see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/DistTag/

> Source0: http://people.redhat.com/jhunsake/rig/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

Please use HTTPS.


> Requires: python3

This is not be required. It will be autogenerated.

> Requires: python3-psutil
> Requires: python3-systemd

This should not be required. It should be autogenerated from upstream metadata (but it is missing there).

> %check
> %{__python3} setup.py test

Please, use %{python3} over %{__python3}.


> %{python3_sitelib}/*

This is not discouraged, see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_files_to_include

> %license LICENSE

Please also add %doc README.md

> This is not discouraged

Should have been either "this is not recommended" or "this is discouraged" and I've combined it wrongly. Sorry.

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/TurboTurtle/rig/packaging-changes/rig.spec
SRPM URL: https://people.redhat.com/jhunsake/rig/rig-1.0-1.fc31.src.rpm


Made those changes - switching to using the autogenerated Requires seems to add a BuildRequires on systemd-devel for %check (as otherwise it fails with No such file or directory), so I've added that assuming that is the right course of action.

The package doesn't build now:

+ /usr/bin/python3 setup.py test
running test
WARNING: Testing via this command is deprecated and will be removed in a future version. Users looking for a generic test entry point independent of test runner are encouraged to use tox.
WARNING: The pip package is not available, falling back to EasyInstall for handling setup_requires/test_requires; this is deprecated and will be removed in a future version.
Searching for systemd
Reading https://pypi.org/simple/systemd/
Download error on https://pypi.org/simple/systemd/: [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution -- Some packages may not be found!
Scanning index of all packages (this may take a while)
Couldn't find index page for 'systemd' (maybe misspelled?)
Reading https://pypi.org/simple/
Download error on https://pypi.org/simple/: [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution -- Some packages may not be found!
No local packages or working download links found for systemd
error: Could not find suitable distribution for Requirement.parse('systemd')
RPM build errors:
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.9HaGNt (%check)


In order to run the tests, you need to get the runtime requirements:

  BuildRequires: python3dist(systemd)
  BuildRequires: python3dist(psutil)

That can be automated as well, but not wth the current macros and guidelines.

Links updated

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/TurboTurtle/rig/packaging-changes/rig.spec
SRPM URL: https://people.redhat.com/jhunsake/rig/rig-1.0-1.fc31.src.rpm


Also found that what was needed was systemd-python, not systemd for setuptools and python3dist().

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: rig-1.0-1.fc33.noarch.rpm
          rig-1.0-1.fc33.src.rpm
rig.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C when the trigger condition is met. Its primary aim is to assist in troubleshooting
rig.noarch: W: no-url-tag
rig.src: E: description-line-too-long C when the trigger condition is met. Its primary aim is to assist in troubleshooting
rig.src: W: no-url-tag
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings.


Please fix the two problems reported.


Other than that I have noticed that the Python project name here is rig, but https://pypi.org/project/rig/ is a different project.
I consider this quite confusing and would suggest you to rename the Python project to rigging, but that is already taken, however empty: https://pypi.org/project/rigging/0/#history -- you might want to follow https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0541/ to get it. Alternatively, come up with a new name.



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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "GNU Lesser General Public License", "Unknown or generated",
     "GPL (v2)".
[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 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
     packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
     versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
     use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[?]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: 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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[?]: 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]: 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: rig-1.0-1.fc33.noarch.rpm
          rig-1.0-1.fc33.src.rpm
rig.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C when the trigger condition is met. Its primary aim is to assist in troubleshooting
rig.noarch: W: no-url-tag
rig.src: E: description-line-too-long C when the trigger condition is met. Its primary aim is to assist in troubleshooting
rig.src: W: no-url-tag
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
rig.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C when the trigger condition is met. Its primary aim is to assist in troubleshooting
rig.noarch: W: no-url-tag
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
https://people.redhat.com/jhunsake/rig/rig-1.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : d178e29a833a13439cd6e2a093a3dd021267cdec675e0c5007416ae94f383fb2
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d178e29a833a13439cd6e2a093a3dd021267cdec675e0c5007416ae94f383fb2


Requires
--------
rig (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)
    python3.9dist(psutil)
    python3.9dist(systemd-python)



Provides
--------
rig:
    python3.9dist(rig)
    python3dist(rig)
    rig

Links updated, rpmlint errors fixed.

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/TurboTurtle/rig/packaging-changes/rig.spec
SRPM URL: https://people.redhat.com/jhunsake/rig/rig-1.0-1.fc31.src.rpm


As for the name, the pypi rig does not ship in Fedora (and appears inactive/abandoned), and I have no intention of pushing this rig into pypi. I am curious as to why a name conflict from an external source is a blocker.

> I am curious as to why a name conflict from an external source is a blocker.

It isn't a blocker. It was merely a strong suggestion. As an user, when I do `pip list` and I see a package listed I suppose it is the same software as the package I get when I `pip install` it.

Consider this:

    $ sudo dnf install rig
    $ pip install --user rig
    Requirement already satisfied: rig in /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages (1.0)
    Requirement already satisfied: psutil in /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages (from rig) (5.7.2)
    Requirement already satisfied: systemd-python in /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages (from rig) (234)


I also suggest the following:

Since https://github.com/TurboTurtle/rig is the upstream repo, it is confusing that the tarballs not only come from a totally different place, but also contain not yet pushed changes. In the future, I strongly suggest tagging in git and fetching tarballs from GitHub directly, for integrity:

    Url:        https://github.com/TurboTurtle/rig
    Source0:    %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

(Assuming the tag is identical to version.)

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: rig-1.0-1.fc33.noarch.rpm
          rig-1.0-1.fc33.src.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Package is APPROVED.

Oh, no. I've just noticed one more thing:

Executing(%check): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.einNSt
+ umask 022
+ cd /builddir/build/BUILD
+ cd rig-1.0
+ /usr/bin/python3 setup.py test
running test
WARNING: Testing via this command is deprecated and will be removed in a future version. Users looking for a generic test entry point independent of test runner are encouraged to use tox.
running egg_info
writing rig.egg-info/PKG-INFO
writing dependency_links to rig.egg-info/dependency_links.txt
writing requirements to rig.egg-info/requires.txt
writing top-level names to rig.egg-info/top_level.txt
reading manifest file 'rig.egg-info/SOURCES.txt'
writing manifest file 'rig.egg-info/SOURCES.txt'
running build_ext
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ran 0 tests in 0.000s


There are no tests run as part of the build. If there are tests, please do run them. If not, please don't put an no-op setup.py test call.

(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #10)
> In the future, I strongly suggest
> tagging in git and fetching tarballs from GitHub directly, for integrity:
> 
>     Url:        https://github.com/TurboTurtle/rig
>     Source0:    %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
> 
> (Assuming the tag is identical to version.)

Done. I was keeping the specfile changes in a separate branch through this review to avoid multiple revision pushes to master, those are now pushed and the release has been re-tagged.


> If not, please don't put an no-op setup.py test call.


Removed

APPROVED again.

Consider removing:

BuildRequires: python3dist(systemd-python)
BuildRequires: python3dist(psutil)

It is not needed without any tests.

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rig

FEDORA-2020-8d178614d5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-8d178614d5

FEDORA-2020-8d178614d5 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-8d178614d5 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-8d178614d5

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2020-8d178614d5 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.