Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/agroup/pyghmi-rpm-spec-files/master/python-pyghmi.spec SRPM URL: https://raw.github.com/agroup/pyghmi-rpm-spec-files/master/python-pyghmi-0.5.8-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: A pure python implementation of IPMI protocol. Fedora Account System Username: lucasagomes
Hi, I'm doing an unofficial review. Question: Why is python-pbr a runtime requirement? Is it necessary? Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel Please update your BuildRequires to python2-devel - The %description should probably say "This is a pure python implementation of the IPMI protocol." [!]: Latest version is packaged. There's a newer version: 0.5.9-1 [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages (python-pecan, python-wsme, python-libs) Probably a good idea to update the %files to: %{python_sitelib}/pyghmi ===== 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jslagle/rpmbuild/1067445-python- pyghmi/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages (python-pecan, python-wsme, python-libs) Probably a good idea to update the %files to: %{python_sitelib}/pyghmi [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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. [x]: 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 20480 bytes in 2 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 %doc. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [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 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]: 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). Why is python-pbr a runtime requirement? [x]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. There's a newer version: 0.5.9-1 [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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. Only tested x86_64 [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. There's no %check, but I don't think adding one is possible because the test requirement testrepository>=0.0.17 does not exist in fedora rawhide [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 (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-pyghmi-0.5.8-1.fc20.noarch.rpm python-pyghmi-0.5.8-1.fc20.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-pyghmi 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python-pyghmi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-crypto python-pbr Provides -------- python-pyghmi: python-pyghmi Source checksums ---------------- http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/pyghmi/pyghmi-0.5.8.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : fcabe403ad39e982940dfdce4d30bafad30f16c6214f7799ae900004af202164 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fcabe403ad39e982940dfdce4d30bafad30f16c6214f7799ae900004af202164 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1067445 Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
The URL tag seems wrong to me? I'd use either of: https://github.com/stackforge/pyghmi https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pyghmi Looking at the build requires: BuildRequires: python-devel https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires suggests using python2-devel BuildRequires: python-pbr Yep, 'python setup.py build' needs this BuildRequires: python-subunit BuildRequires: python-setuptools BuildRequires: python-testrepository These are only needed for 'python setup.py testr' and we're not doing that. So, I think you can drop those. As for runtime requires: Requires: python-pbr pyghmi does not have runtime need for pbr. Nova does because of the nova.version module, but that doesn't apply here. Requires: python-crypto >= 2.6 That's fine It looks like upstream supports python 2 and 3, so we could build a python3 sub-package ... I'm fine with leaving that for later, though. I think you should build a -doc subpackage though, see how I did it in http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/python-oslo-messaging.git/tree/python-oslo-messaging.spec I'd like this: %{python_sitelib} to be more specific e.g. %files %{python_sitelib}/pyghmi %{python_sitelib}/*.egg-info This is wrong :) * Wed Mar 13 2013 Lucas Alvares Gomes <lucasagomes> - 0.5.8-1
Thanks for the review guys, spec and SRPM updated: Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/agroup/pyghmi-rpm-spec-files/master/python-pyghmi.spec SRPM URL: https://raw.github.com/agroup/pyghmi-rpm-spec-files/master/python-pyghmi-0.5.9-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: A pure python implementation of IPMI protocol. Fedora Account System Username: lucasagomes @James Slagle I will package the version 0.5.9 instead of the latest 0.5.9.1 because the lastest release seems to be a broken release[1] @Mark McLoughlin I think python3 is not supported upstream, on the pypi website it seems to not list python3[2] I tried to build the doc sub-package but docs seems to be broken, it fails with: Running Sphinx v1.2b1 Exception occurred: File "conf.py", line 54, in <module> from ipmi.version import version_info ImportError: No module named ipmi.version Also, as you rightly pointed to me on IRC Jenkins is not starting any docs job for pyghmi at gate[3] [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-ci/+bug/1281385 [2] https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pyghmi/0.5.9 [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/73610/
1. pyghmi URL: https://github.com/stackforge/pyghmi 2. %{__python} --> %{__python2} 3. %{python_sitelib} --> %{python2_sitelib} (In reply to James Slagle from comment #1) > Hi, I'm doing an unofficial review. Unofficial review doesn't mean that you can do the review carelessly. > 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]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Packaging_eggs_and_setuptools_concerns Please remove the bundled egg.
Spec and SRPM updated: Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/agroup/pyghmi-rpm-spec-files/master/python-pyghmi.spec SRPM URL: https://raw.github.com/agroup/pyghmi-rpm-spec-files/master/python-pyghmi-0.5.9-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: A pure python implementation of IPMI protocol. Fedora Account System Username: lucasagomes @Christopher Meng 1. 2. 3. done bundled egg removed and also the {test-,}requirements.txt (I saw it looking at openstackish packages that use pbr) Thank you for the review.
Thanks Lucas, this seems good to me now. Review appended below 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/markmc/trash/pyghmi/new/review- python-pyghmi/licensecheck.txt [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 20480 bytes in 2 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 %doc. [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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [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 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. According to Lucas, 0.5.9.1 doesn't work [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. [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 (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-pyghmi-0.5.9-1.fc21.noarch.rpm python-pyghmi-0.5.9-1.fc21.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-pyghmi 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python-pyghmi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-crypto Provides -------- python-pyghmi: python-pyghmi Source checksums ---------------- http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/pyghmi/pyghmi-0.5.9.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 00062b0d7ca7e633f4b11dec91630fcfdc898e7044d5793b89815502dc9163f7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 00062b0d7ca7e633f4b11dec91630fcfdc898e7044d5793b89815502dc9163f7 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-devel-x86_64 -n python-pyghmi Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-pyghmi Short Description: A pure python implementation of the IPMI protocol Owners: lucasagomes Branches: f20 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
python-pyghmi-0.5.9-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-pyghmi-0.5.9-1.fc20
python-pyghmi-0.5.9-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
python-pyghmi-0.5.9-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: python-pyghmi New Branches: epel7 Owners: lucasgomes jomara InitialCC: lucasgomes