Bug 987843 (python-bloom)
| Summary: | Review Request: python-bloom - A ROS release automation tool for catkin packages | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Rich Mattes <richmattes> |
| Status: | CLOSED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | logans, package-review, richmattes |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | richmattes:
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: | 2014-04-07 05:26:55 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
Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)
2013-07-24 09:34:04 UTC
I'll take this for review. Rich, based on the discussion on the ROS build sys ML, I don't think bloom can function on Fedora at all. Until one of us comes up with a Fedora generator, this package is mostly unusable. What do you think? Should I mark the whiteboard as NotReady? With the development of the RPM generators, I think it would be good to pick this back up. I really don't mean to hijack this request in any way, but I'd like to get this package pushed ASAP. Bloom 0.5.1 includes my preliminary RPM generation code, but I honestly believe that this would be of use in Fedora even without it. The debian generation can happen on Fedora without any problems, which means that someone could use bloom to release and maintain their package from Fedora. As someone who does just that, I can say that it would be nice not to need to pip install. In any case, I made an RPM for myself a while ago, and was updating it to make a package request when I found this one. I'll post my package here, and you can use it or parts of it if you like, Ankur. Either way, please note that there are quite a few missing runtime dependencies on the spec you posted... Spec URL: http://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-bloom/python-bloom.spec SRPM URL: http://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-bloom/python-bloom-0.5.1-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Fedora Account System Username: cottsay rpmlint output: python-bloom.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US buildpackage -> build package, build-package, prepackage python-bloom.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US debian's -> Debian's python-bloom.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US src -> arc, sec, sic python-bloom.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US buildpackage -> build package, build-package, prepackage python-bloom.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US debian's -> Debian's python-bloom.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US src -> arc, sec, sic python-bloom.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/git-bloom-config python-bloom.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary git-bloom-generate python-bloom.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary git-bloom-import-upstream python-bloom.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bloom-generate python-bloom.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary git-bloom-branch python-bloom.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary git-bloom-release python-bloom.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary git-bloom-patch python-bloom.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bloom-update python-bloom.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary git-bloom-config python-bloom.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bloom-export-upstream python-bloom.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bloom-release 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 17 warnings. Thanks, --scott Scott, Please take over the review if you want to. I don't have cycles to work on this for a few weeks. I can co-maintain the package with you if you wish. Thanks, Ankur If possible, please split out the deb and rpm generators into subpackages, so that one can install whichever they need and not the entire thing. So you'll have something like: python-bloom-common - files common to both python-bloom-deb - deb generator python-bloom-rpm - rpm generator and the python-bloom main meta-package, which pulls them all in. As it happens, this will not be possible. When someone uses git-bloom-release, a list of commands is run to generate the package. If we don't install the other generators, this will fail, eliminating the possibility of running git-bloom-release. git-bloom-generate would function correctly, though. Unless you can see a way around this, I don't think this is possible. I'm not sure you'd ever want to do them separately, anyway. If a ROS package maintainer wants to release a new version, they'll want to release it for debain and rpm distros, which can currently be done from either Fedora or Ubuntu without issue. I should have posted this earlier, but here [1] is the generation command list I was talking about. RPM generation will be a part of it as soon as the required pulls in rosdep [2] and rosdistro [3] happen. Thanks, --scott [1] https://github.com/ros-infrastructure/bloom/blob/master/bloom/config.py#L191-L200 [2] https://github.com/ros-infrastructure/rosdep/pull/302 [3] https://github.com/ros/rosdistro/pull/3202 Scott, can you open a new review request and mark this request as a duplicate, as per the stalled package review policy? I'll review the package once that's done. New request is open. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1084865 *** |