Bug 1000276 (python-wstool) - Review Request: python-wstool - A tool for managing a workspace of multiple heterogenous SCM repositories
Summary: Review Request: python-wstool - A tool for managing a workspace of multiple h...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: python-wstool
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Mario Blättermann
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2013-08-23 05:37 UTC by Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)
Modified: 2014-02-10 19:06 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version: python-wstool-0.0.3-1.fc18
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-12-05 10:29:41 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
mario.blaettermann: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2013-08-23 05:37:44 UTC
Spec URL: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-wstool/python-wstool.spec
SRPM URL: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-wstool/python-wstool-0.0.3-1.fc19.src.rpm

Description: A tool for managing a workspace of multiple heterogenous SCM repositories

Fedora Account System Username: ankursinha

Comment 1 Mario Blättermann 2013-08-24 09:20:45 UTC
Please read the template contents before you submit a package for review:

Remove the unneeded arch-dependent line from the header (the "sitearch" one). In general, this header is not needed anymore, unless you want to provide it for EPEL 5. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros.

# Remove CFLAGS=... for noarch packages (unneeded)
Your package is noarch, so you can safely drop the CFLAGS statement (and also the comment in any case).

BuildRequires:  python-devel
This is deprecated, use python2-devel instead. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires.

%install
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
This is no longer needed. The initial cleaning of buildroot is default for a long time.

The tarball bundles an egg-info (in ./src). You are forced to rebuild it from source; python-setuptools will do this job anyway. That's why remove that folder in %prep. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Eggs#Upstream_Eggs.

PKG-INFO says:
Classifier: Programming Language :: Python :: 3
This module should also work with Python v3. Please install it for python3, too.

Instead of simply repeating the summary in the description, you might use that one from the homepage (http://www.ros.org/wiki/wstool#wstool-1):
"wstool provides commands to manage several local SCM repositories (supports git, mercurial, subversion, bazaar) based on a single workspace definition file (.rosinstall)."

There's a spelling error in summary/description:
heterogenous -> heterogeneous

Comment 3 Mario Blättermann 2013-08-25 11:58:39 UTC
(In reply to Mario Blättermann from comment #1)
> The tarball bundles an egg-info (in ./src). You are forced to rebuild it
> from source; python-setuptools will do this job anyway. That's why remove
> that folder in %prep. See
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Eggs#Upstream_Eggs.

%prep
%setup -q -n %{module_name}-%{version}
rm -rf src/%{module_name}.egg-info

Comment 4 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2013-08-25 12:17:22 UTC
(In reply to Mario Blättermann from comment #3)
> (In reply to Mario Blättermann from comment #1)
> > The tarball bundles an egg-info (in ./src). You are forced to rebuild it
> > from source; python-setuptools will do this job anyway. That's why remove
> > that folder in %prep. See
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Eggs#Upstream_Eggs.
> 
> %prep
> %setup -q -n %{module_name}-%{version}
> rm -rf src/%{module_name}.egg-info

Not needed. New src tarball doesn't bundle it:

[asinha@ankur  wstool-0.0.3]$ tree
.
|-- doc
|   `-- changelog.rst
|-- dput.cf
|-- LICENSE
|-- Makefile
|-- README.rst
|-- scripts
|   `-- wstool
|-- setup.py
|-- src
|   `-- wstool
|       |-- __init__.py
|       |-- __version__.py
|       `-- wstool_cli.py
`-- stdeb.cfg

4 directories, 11 files
[asinha@ankur  wstool-0.0.3]$

Comment 5 Mario Blättermann 2013-08-25 12:28:16 UTC
(In reply to Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) from comment #4)
> Not needed. New src tarball doesn't bundle it:
> 
Do we speak about the same version 0.0.3? If I unpack the tarball downloaded from the pypi link submitted in your spec, I get the following content:

$ tree
.
├── PKG-INFO
├── scripts
│   └── wstool
├── setup.cfg
├── setup.py
└── src
    ├── wstool
    │   ├── __init__.py
    │   ├── __version__.py
    │   └── wstool_cli.py
    └── wstool.egg-info
        ├── dependency_links.txt
        ├── PKG-INFO
        ├── requires.txt
        ├── SOURCES.txt
        └── top_level.txt

4 directories, 12 files

Comment 6 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2013-08-26 04:25:57 UTC
The updated spec uses the tarball generated from the github tag:

http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-wstool/python-wstool.spec

This does not bundle the egg info etc.

Comment 7 Mario Blättermann 2013-08-26 08:36:03 UTC
%files
...
%{_bindir}/%{module_name}

%files -n python3-wstool
...
%{_bindir}/%{module_name}

This would cause a conflict, if someone wants to install both packages. Please rename the binary for Python 3, for example %{_bindir}/%{module_name}3.


* Sun Aug 25 2013 Ankur Sinha <ankursinha AT fedoraproject DOT org> 0.0.3-1
...
* Sat Mar 16 2013 Ankur Sinha <ankursinha AT fedoraproject DOT org> 0.0.3-1

You must not have two changelog entries with the same release number. Bump it each time you change anything, and don't forget to change the file header.

In general, providing a fixed spec file is insufficient. I need the new srpm for a full review, too.

Comment 8 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2013-08-26 09:05:39 UTC
(In reply to Mario Blättermann from comment #7)
> %files
> ...
> %{_bindir}/%{module_name}
> 
> %files -n python3-wstool
> ...
> %{_bindir}/%{module_name}
> 
> This would cause a conflict, if someone wants to install both packages.
> Please rename the binary for Python 3, for example
> %{_bindir}/%{module_name}3.
> 
> 
> * Sun Aug 25 2013 Ankur Sinha <ankursinha AT fedoraproject DOT org> 0.0.3-1
> ...
> * Sat Mar 16 2013 Ankur Sinha <ankursinha AT fedoraproject DOT org> 0.0.3-1
> 
> You must not have two changelog entries with the same release number. Bump
> it each time you change anything, and don't forget to change the file header.
> 
> In general, providing a fixed spec file is insufficient. I need the new srpm
> for a full review, too.

Did you check the srpm link I posted in comment 2? It is the new srpm that goes with the updated spec file.

It is acceptable to add a new changelog entry with the same release. It's documented in the packaging guidelines here:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Repeat_the_old_version_release_with_a_new_entry


I'll rename the binary and upload a new spec/srpm.

Ankur

Comment 9 Mario Blättermann 2013-08-26 09:23:16 UTC
(In reply to Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) from comment #8)
> Did you check the srpm link I posted in comment 2? It is the new srpm that
> goes with the updated spec file.
>
I actually expect to get the links to changed spec and srpm in the same message. It is somewhat annoying to figure out where the srpm resides which to the current spec refers.  
> It is acceptable to add a new changelog entry with the same release. It's
> documented in the packaging guidelines here:
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/
> Guidelines#Repeat_the_old_version_release_with_a_new_entry
> 
> 
> I'll rename the binary and upload a new spec/srpm.
> 
OK.

Comment 10 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2013-08-26 09:43:42 UTC
(In reply to Mario Blättermann from comment #9)
> (In reply to Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) from comment #8)
> > Did you check the srpm link I posted in comment 2? It is the new srpm that
> > goes with the updated spec file.
> >
> I actually expect to get the links to changed spec and srpm in the same
> message. It is somewhat annoying to figure out where the srpm resides which
> to the current spec refers.  

Comment 2 does have links to both the spec and srpm. Comment 6 pointed out that the rm isn't required since a new tarball was used. Sorry if it confused you.

Here are the new spec/srpm:

http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-wstool/python-wstool.spec

http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-wstool/python-wstool-0.0.3-1.fc21.src.rpm

Thanks,
Warm regards,
Ankur

Comment 11 Mario Blättermann 2013-08-26 10:09:47 UTC
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5853705

$ rpmlint -i -v *python3-wstool.noarch: I: checking
python3-wstool.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) workspace -> work space, work-space, works pace
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

python3-wstool.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workspace -> work space, work-space, works pace
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

python3-wstool.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rosinstall -> rosin stall, rosin-stall, rosins tall
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

python3-wstool.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rosws -> roses, rows, Roswell
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

python3-wstool.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workspaces -> work spaces, work-spaces, works paces
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

python3-wstool.noarch: I: checking-url http://www.ros.org/wiki/wstool (timeout 10 seconds)
python3-wstool.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary python3-wstool
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.

python-wstool.noarch: I: checking
python-wstool.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) workspace -> work space, work-space, works pace
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

python-wstool.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workspace -> work space, work-space, works pace
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

python-wstool.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rosinstall -> rosin stall, rosin-stall, rosins tall
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

python-wstool.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rosws -> roses, rows, Roswell
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

python-wstool.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workspaces -> work spaces, work-spaces, works paces
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

python-wstool.noarch: I: checking-url http://www.ros.org/wiki/wstool (timeout 10 seconds)
python-wstool.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wstool
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.

python-wstool.src: I: checking
python-wstool.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) workspace -> work space, work-space, works pace
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

python-wstool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workspace -> work space, work-space, works pace
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

python-wstool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rosinstall -> rosin stall, rosin-stall, rosins tall
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

python-wstool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rosws -> roses, rows, Roswell
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

python-wstool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workspaces -> work spaces, work-spaces, works paces
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

python-wstool.src: I: checking-url http://www.ros.org/wiki/wstool (timeout 10 seconds)
python-wstool.src: W: invalid-url Source0: wstool-0.0.3.tar.gz
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.

python-wstool.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: wstool-0.0.3.tar.gz
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.

3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 19 warnings.


Some invalid spelling errors, no manpages, no full source URL. Nothing of interest so far.


---------------------------------
key:

[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
---------------------------------

[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
    BSD
[+] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
    $ sha256sum *
    e5e056893f32f8e83737e133c592205fcf505cf7a04081b42ec3da557ce13084  wstool-0.0.3.tar.gz
    e5e056893f32f8e83737e133c592205fcf505cf7a04081b42ec3da557ce13084  wstool-0.0.3.tar.gz.orig

[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[.] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[.] MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. 
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.


[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[.] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
    See Koji build above (which uses Mock anyway).
[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
[.] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
[.] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
[.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency.
[.] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb.
[.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself.
[.] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.


----------------

PACKAGE APPROVED

----------------

Comment 12 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2013-08-26 11:39:07 UTC
Thanks for the review Mario :)

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: python-wstool
Short Description: A tool for managing a workspace of multiple heterogeneous SCM repositories
Owners: ankursinha
Branches: f18 f19 f20
InitialCC:

Comment 13 Gwyn Ciesla 2013-08-26 12:27:13 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2013-08-26 13:07:16 UTC
python-wstool-0.0.3-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-wstool-0.0.3-1.fc18

Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2013-08-26 13:07:24 UTC
python-wstool-0.0.3-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-wstool-0.0.3-1.fc19

Comment 16 Fedora Update System 2013-08-26 22:29:39 UTC
python-wstool-0.0.3-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.

Comment 17 Fedora Update System 2013-12-05 10:29:41 UTC
python-wstool-0.0.3-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.

Comment 18 Fedora Update System 2013-12-05 10:32:47 UTC
python-wstool-0.0.3-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.

Comment 19 Rich Mattes 2014-02-10 18:42:56 UTC
Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: python-wstool
New Branches: el6 epel7
Owners: rmattes ankursinha

Comment 20 Gwyn Ciesla 2014-02-10 19:06:26 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.