Spec URL: https://bitbucket.org/dhiru/packages/raw/master/pudb/python-pudb.spec SRPM URL: https://bitbucket.org/dhiru/packages/raw/master/pudb/python-pudb-2013.3.5-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Hi, I have just finished packaging "pudb" which is a full-screen, console-based Python debugger. For more information on "pudb", please see https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pudb I would appreciate a review so that I (and others) can do "yum install python-pudb" in the near future ;) This is my first package, so be nice. Fedora Account System Username: halfie
First, do you have intention of supporting EL5?
I will check this package tomorrow. Meanwhile go through this http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group#Reviewing_packages and do unofficial reviews. you can also read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join then http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #1) > First, do you have intention of supporting EL5? I don't know. So, I will say "no" for now.
Auh... You SHOULD know it, because you finally need to know it. EL5 ships py2.4.
build seems to be fine, https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5893771
Review:- + package builds fine in mock (f21) - rpmlint output on rpms gave python3-pudb.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.3/site-packages/pudb/debugger.py 0644L /usr/bin/env python3-pudb.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pudb3 python-pudb.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pudb/debugger.py 0644L /usr/bin/env python-pudb.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pudb 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings. + Source verified with upstream as (sha256sum) tarball in srpm : 3f99f6f1d85808f6f17ee86a2bb28845e86c9bb3e72868d6bfe10ef7e22bcfff tarball from upstream : 3f99f6f1d85808f6f17ee86a2bb28845e86c9bb3e72868d6bfe10ef7e22bcfff + License is "MIT" and there is license text in any source file or own license text file. Suggestions: 1) I assume you are not building this package on el5 and el6, so remove invalid buildroot. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag 2) I assume you are not building this package on el5 and el6, so remove following from spec as its not needed anymore in Fedora %if ! (0%{?rhel} > 5) %{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib())")} %endif If you want to build for EPEL then keep above. 3) BuildRequires: python-devel should be changed to python2-devel See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/:Python#BuildRequires 4) rpmlint output is showing non-executable-script error. To fix this add following line in %prep but before copying to py3dir sed -i '1{\@^#! /usr/bin/env python@d}' pudb/debugger.py 5) I don't think you will need to write explicitly attr(0755, root, root) for /usr/bin/pudb. Remove attr(). 6) source package does not include license text as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. Please bump the release tag when you will fix above issues and submit a new srpm.
(In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #6) > Review:- > > + package builds fine in mock (f21) > > - rpmlint output on rpms gave > python3-pudb.noarch: E: non-executable-script > /usr/lib/python3.3/site-packages/pudb/debugger.py 0644L /usr/bin/env > python3-pudb.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pudb3 > python-pudb.noarch: E: non-executable-script > /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pudb/debugger.py 0644L /usr/bin/env > python-pudb.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pudb > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings. > > + Source verified with upstream as (sha256sum) > tarball in srpm : > 3f99f6f1d85808f6f17ee86a2bb28845e86c9bb3e72868d6bfe10ef7e22bcfff > tarball from upstream : > 3f99f6f1d85808f6f17ee86a2bb28845e86c9bb3e72868d6bfe10ef7e22bcfff > > > + License is "MIT" and there is license text in any source file or own > license text file. > > > Suggestions: > 1) I assume you are not building this package on el5 and el6, so remove > invalid buildroot. Removed BuildRoot tag. > 2) I assume you are not building this package on el5 and el6, so remove > following from spec as its not needed anymore in Fedora > %if ! (0%{?rhel} > 5) > %{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from > distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib())")} > %endif Removed. > If you want to build for EPEL then keep above. I can't support EPEL builds (for now). Hence removed. > 3) BuildRequires: python-devel should be changed to python2-devel > See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/:Python#BuildRequires Done. > 4) rpmlint output is showing non-executable-script error. To fix this add > following line in %prep but before copying to py3dir > sed -i '1{\@^#! /usr/bin/env python@d}' pudb/debugger.py Fixed. > 5) I don't think you will need to write explicitly attr(0755, root, root) > for /usr/bin/pudb. Remove attr(). Fixed. > 6) source package does not include license text as a separate file from > upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. I will ask upstream about this. > Please bump the release tag when you will fix above issues and submit a new > srpm. Done. https://bitbucket.org/dhiru/packages/raw/master/pudb/python-pudb.spec https://bitbucket.org/dhiru/packages/raw/master/pudb/python-pudb-2013.3.5-2.fc19.src.rpm http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5898998
(In reply to Dhiru Kholia from comment #7) > > 4) rpmlint output is showing non-executable-script error. To fix this add > > following line in %prep but before copying to py3dir > > sed -i '1{\@^#! /usr/bin/env python@d}' pudb/debugger.py > > Fixed. As suggested sed should be added before python3 conditional in %prep. The rpmlint output is still not silent. here is how your %prep should look --------------------------------------------------------------- %prep %setup -q -n %{upstream_name}-%{version} rm -rf %{module_name}.egg-info sed -i '1{\@^#! /usr/bin/env python@d}' pudb/debugger.py %if %{with python3} rm -rf %{py3dir} cp -a . %{py3dir} %endif --------------------------------------------------------------- > > 5) I don't think you will need to write explicitly attr(0755, root, root) > > for /usr/bin/pudb. Remove attr(). > > Fixed. This is fixed for python3 subpackage but not for main python package. Fix this. Also, do some package reviews and post the links here to those review comments.
(In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #8) > (In reply to Dhiru Kholia from comment #7) > > > > 4) rpmlint output is showing non-executable-script error. To fix this add > > > following line in %prep but before copying to py3dir > > > sed -i '1{\@^#! /usr/bin/env python@d}' pudb/debugger.py > > > > Fixed. > > As suggested sed should be added before python3 conditional in %prep. The > rpmlint output is still not silent. > here is how your %prep should look > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > %prep > %setup -q -n %{upstream_name}-%{version} > rm -rf %{module_name}.egg-info > > sed -i '1{\@^#! /usr/bin/env python@d}' pudb/debugger.py > > %if %{with python3} > rm -rf %{py3dir} > cp -a . %{py3dir} > %endif > --------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks. Done. > > > 5) I don't think you will need to write explicitly attr(0755, root, root) > > > for /usr/bin/pudb. Remove attr(). > > > > Fixed. > > This is fixed for python3 subpackage but not for main python package. Fix > this. Fixed now. I don't know why I missed this one :-) Links ===== https://bitbucket.org/dhiru/packages/raw/master/pudb/python-pudb.spec https://bitbucket.org/dhiru/packages/raw/master/pudb/python-pudb-2013.3.5-2.fc19.src.rpm http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5899874
proper links to make fedora-review happy Spec URL: https://bitbucket.org/dhiru/packages/raw/master/pudb/python-pudb.spec SRPM URL: https://bitbucket.org/dhiru/packages/raw/master/pudb/python-pudb-2013.3.5-3.fc19.src.rpm
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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]: 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 [-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [-]: 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 %doc. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 21 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /vol/home/paul/1004257-python-pudb/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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 [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). 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). [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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. There is a tests/ directory with three tests. Can these be run from %check ? [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [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: python-pudb-2013.3.5-3.fc20.noarch.rpm python-pudb.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pudb 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. ExecSum: Looks good to me. separate license file: did you ping upstream and ask to include one? suggestion: can the tests/*.py be run in %check ? nitpick: %build starts with python2 then python3. %install starts with 3. Make them consistent? Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-pudb python-pudb.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pudb 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python-pudb (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python python(abi) python-pygments python-urwid Provides -------- python-pudb: python-pudb
(In reply to Paul Wouters from comment #11) > separate license file: did you ping upstream and ask to include one? Yes. I am now waiting for upstream's reply. > suggestion: can the tests/*.py be run in %check ? Files in "test" folder don't seem to be used at all. Also, those files aren't automated test script it seems. > nitpick: %build starts with python2 then python3. %install starts with 3. Make them consistent? Good catch. Fixed now. New links, Spec URL: https://bitbucket.org/dhiru/packages/raw/master/pudb/python-pudb.spec SRPM URL: https://bitbucket.org/dhiru/packages/raw/master/pudb/python-pudb-2013.3.5-4.fc19.src.rpm http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5900906
Hi! (In reply to Dhiru Kholia from comment #12) > New links, > > Spec URL: > https://bitbucket.org/dhiru/packages/raw/master/pudb/python-pudb.spec Just two more suggestions/questions from me: - %{__python} is deprecated, you should use %{__python2} (see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros) - Regarding the executables in /usr/bin: are separate versions, pudb and pudb3, needed to debug Python 2 and Python 3 programs? Otherwise, looks fine to me. P.S.: You get this if you announce the package on the devel mailing list ;-).
yes as per recently changed guidelines use %{__python2} macro. Also, please add what actually changed in spec from previous release. Don't add just "implemented fixes suggested in BZ #1004257". If you can fix previous release changelog entries to some real change text that will be good.
(In reply to Tadej Janež from comment #13) > Just two more suggestions/questions from me: > - %{__python} is deprecated, you should use %{__python2} (see: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros) Fixed now. > - Regarding the executables in /usr/bin: are separate versions, pudb and > pudb3, needed to debug Python 2 and Python 3 programs? Yes. Exactly.
(In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #14) > yes as per recently changed guidelines use %{__python2} macro. Also, please > add what actually changed in spec from previous release. Don't add just > "implemented fixes suggested in BZ #1004257". > > If you can fix previous release changelog entries to some real change text > that will be good. Fixed now. Spec URL: https://bitbucket.org/dhiru/packages/raw/master/pudb/python-pudb.spec SRPM URL: https://bitbucket.org/dhiru/packages/raw/master/pudb/python-pudb-2013.3.5-5.fc19.src.rpm http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5905996 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5905997
(In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #6) > 6) source package does not include license text as a separate file from > upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. Upstream has fixed this issue now in version "2013.3.6". I have updated my .spec to build this new version of pudb. Spec URL: https://bitbucket.org/dhiru/packages/raw/master/pudb/python-pudb.spec SRPM URL: https://bitbucket.org/dhiru/packages/raw/master/pudb/python-pudb-2013.3.6-1.fc19.src.rpm http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5906333 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5906335
just change %{python_sitelib} to %{python_sitelib2} APPROVED
Reporter mentioned on IRC that he has been sponsored in packager. I am clearing FE-NEEDSPONSOR.
ah! sorry it should be %{python2_sitelib}. Its new guidelines change. See /etc/rpm/macros.python2
(In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #20) > ah! sorry it should be %{python2_sitelib}. Its new guidelines change. See > /etc/rpm/macros.python2 Fixed now. Spec URL: https://bitbucket.org/dhiru/packages/raw/master/pudb/python-pudb.spec SRPM URL: https://bitbucket.org/dhiru/packages/raw/master/pudb/python-pudb-2013.3.6-2.fc19.src.rpm http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5916981
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-pudb Short Description: A full-screen, console-based Python debugger Owners: halfie Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC: paragn
Requested package name python-pudb doesn't match bug summary pudb, please correct.
Git done (by process-git-requests).
python-pudb-2013.3.6-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-pudb-2013.3.6-2.fc19
python-pudb-2013.3.6-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.
python-pudb-2013.3.6-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.