Spec URL: http://jenselme.perso.centrale-marseille.fr/visible/SPECS/python-svgwrite.spec SRPM URL: http://jenselme.perso.centrale-marseille.fr/visible/SRPMS/python-svgwrite-1.1.3-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: A Python library to create SVG drawings. Fedora Account System Username: jujens Hi, this is my first package, so I need a sponsor. Koji task link : https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6577521
1. From https://pypi.python.org/pypi/svgwrite/, this package supports python3, please enable python3 subpackage. 2. %{__python} --> %{__python2}, %{python_sitelib} --> %{python2_sitelib} 3. After you create python3 package change the %summary and %description, e.g.: python2 one: Summary: A Python library to create SVG drawings to Summary: Python 2 library to create SVG drawings --- python3 one: Summary: A Python library to create SVG drawings to Summary: Python 3 library to create SVG drawings 4. %{buildroot}/$RPM_BUILD_ROOT? No, you should use only one of them in the spec, please choose. 5. %{python_sitelib}/svgwrite-1.1.3-py2.7.egg-info Well, except that unversioned python2 macro, I see this: 1.1.3-py2.7 You can change like: %{version}-py%{python2_version} 6. Remove this line: %{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib())")}
I updated - the spec: http://jenselme.perso.centrale-marseille.fr/visible/SPECS/python-svgwrite.spec - the SRPM: http://jenselme.perso.centrale-marseille.fr/visible/SRPMS/python-svgwrite-1.1.3-1.fc20.src.rpm 1. I added a python3 subpackage 2. I specified the version of python 3. Changed the summary and description of the python 2 and 3 packages 4. I choose $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. Is there any difference between the two (aside from syntax) or a reason to use one instead of another? 5. 1.1.3-py2.7 -> %{version}-py%{python2_version} 6. Removed %{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib())")} I got this line with the template. If I understand this right: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros it is not needed any more. Is there a reason for it to stay in the template?
This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 102 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/lbazan/rpmbuild/SPECS/1070941-python-svgwrite/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: 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 3 files. [ ]: 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: [ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-svgwrite-1.1.3-1.fc20.noarch.rpm python-svgwrite-1.1.3-1.fc20.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-svgwrite 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/lbazan/rpmbuild/SPECS/1070941-python-svgwrite/srpm/python-svgwrite.spec 2014-03-10 12:51:09.660673161 -0500 +++ /home/lbazan/rpmbuild/SPECS/1070941-python-svgwrite/srpm-unpacked/python-svgwrite.spec 2014-02-27 05:45:03.000000000 -0500 @@ -1,6 +1,8 @@ +%{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib())")} + Name: python-svgwrite Version: 1.1.3 -Release: 2%{?dist} -Summary: Python 2 library to create SVG drawings +Release: 1%{?dist} +Summary: A Python library to create SVG drawings License: MIT @@ -12,45 +14,19 @@ %description -Python 2 library to create SVG drawings. - -%package -n python3-svgwrite -Summary: Python 3 library to create SVG drawings -BuildRequires: python3-devel +A Python library to create SVG drawings. -%description -n python3-svgwrite -Python 3 library to create SVG drawings. %prep %setup -q -n svgwrite-%{version} -rm -rf %{py3dir} -cp -a . %{py3dir} %build -pushd %{py3dir} -# Remove pyparsing_py2.py (only for python2) -rm svgwrite/data/pyparsing_py2.py -%{__python3} setup.py build -popd - -# Remove pyparsing_py3.py (only for python3) -rm svgwrite/data/pyparsing_py3.py -%{__python2} setup.py build +%{__python} setup.py build %install -pushd %{py3dir} -%{__python3} setup.py install -O1 --skip-build --root $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -popd -# Remove shebang -for lib in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{python3_sitelib}/svgwrite/{,*/}/*.py; do - sed '1{\@^#!/usr/bin/env python@d}' $lib > $lib.new && - touch -r $lib $lib.new && - mv $lib.new $lib -done - -%{__python2} setup.py install -O1 --skip-build --root $RPM_BUILD_ROOT +%{__python} setup.py install -O1 --skip-build --root $RPM_BUILD_ROOT # Remove shebang -for lib in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{python2_sitelib}/svgwrite/{,*/}/*.py; do +for lib in %{buildroot}%{python_sitelib}/svgwrite/{,*/}/*.py; do sed '1{\@^#!/usr/bin/env python@d}' $lib > $lib.new && touch -r $lib $lib.new && @@ -61,16 +37,9 @@ %files %doc LICENSE.TXT NEWS.TXT README.TXT -%{python2_sitelib}/svgwrite-%{version}-py%{python2_version}.egg-info -%{python2_sitelib}/svgwrite/ +%{python_sitelib}/svgwrite-1.1.3-py2.7.egg-info +%{python_sitelib}/svgwrite/ -%files -n python3-svgwrite -%doc LICENSE.TXT NEWS.TXT README.TXT -%{python3_sitelib}/svgwrite-%{version}-py%{python3_version}.egg-info -%{python3_sitelib}/svgwrite/ %changelog -* Fri Feb 28 2014 Julien Enselme <jujens> - 1.1.3-2 -- Add python3 support -- Improve packaging -* Sun Feb 09 2014 Julien Enselme <jujens> - 1.1.3-1 +* Sun Feb 09 2014 Julien Enselme <jenselme> - 1.1.3-1 - Initial packaging Requires -------- python-svgwrite (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python-svgwrite: python-svgwrite Source checksums ---------------- https://bitbucket.org/mozman/svgwrite/downloads/svgwrite-1.1.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f8d95d1929150dabdc9dc77136524060cfecbe150989ba89742a7c90c6cfdfe8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f8d95d1929150dabdc9dc77136524060cfecbe150989ba89742a7c90c6cfdfe8 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1070941 Buildroot used: fedora-20-i386 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
Please put the new srpm python-svgwrite-1.1.3-2.fc20.src.rpm
$ koji build --scratch rawhide python-svgwrite-1.1.3-2.fc20.src.rpm Uploading srpm: python-svgwrite-1.1.3-2.fc20.src.rpm [====================================] 100% 00:00:03 172.98 KiB 50.22 KiB/sec Created task: 6619529 Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6619529 Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)... 6619529 build (rawhide, python-svgwrite-1.1.3-2.fc20.src.rpm): open (arm04-builder21.arm.fedoraproject.org) 6619530 buildArch (python-svgwrite-1.1.3-2.fc20.src.rpm, noarch): free 6619530 buildArch (python-svgwrite-1.1.3-2.fc20.src.rpm, noarch): free -> open (arm04-builder06.arm.fedoraproject.org) 6619530 buildArch (python-svgwrite-1.1.3-2.fc20.src.rpm, noarch): open (arm04-builder06.arm.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 1 open 1 done 0 failed 6619529 build (rawhide, python-svgwrite-1.1.3-2.fc20.src.rpm): open (arm04-builder21.arm.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 0 open 2 done 0 failed 6619529 build (rawhide, python-svgwrite-1.1.3-2.fc20.src.rpm) completed successfully
(In reply to Luis Bazan from comment #4) When you review a package, please change the bug status from NEW to ASSIGNED, and take the Assigned To field(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/page.cgi?id=fields.html#assigned_to). And DON'T put a template of fedora-review, please fill the [] fields. This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text See "- Remove this text".
Here is the python-svgwrite-1.1.3-2.fc20.src.rpm: http://jenselme.perso.centrale-marseille.fr/visible/SRPMS/python-svgwrite-1.1.3-2.fc20.src.rpm I really thought I put the right link. Sorry.
Hi Julien - add %check %check {__python2} -m unittest discover -s tests - please give space in changelog %changelog * Fri Feb 28 2014 Julien Enselme <jujens> - 1.1.3-2 - Add python3 support - Improve packaging * Sun Feb 09 2014 Julien Enselme <jujens> - 1.1.3-1 - Initial packaging Regards!
I added the %check macro and modify the changelog. I re-uploaded the SPEC : http://jenselme.perso.centrale-marseille.fr/visible/SPECS/python-svgwrite.spec and the SRPM : http://jenselme.perso.centrale-marseille.fr/visible/SRPMS/python-svgwrite-1.1.3-3.fc20.src.rpm
Approved! Regards!
ups one more change: svgwrite/data/pyparsing_* may be bundled libraries It looks like they are pyparsing and python3-pyparsing in fedora. please remove the bundled libraries. thats all and you approved! Best Regards!
remember add the buildrequires pyparsing and python3-pyparsing.
I updated the spec in order to use pyparsing and python3-pyparsing: http://jenselme.perso.centrale-marseille.fr/visible/SPECS/python-svgwrite.spec Here is the SRPM: http://jenselme.perso.centrale-marseille.fr/visible/SRPMS/python-svgwrite-1.1.3-4.fc20.src.rpm and the patch I have to apply: http://jenselme.perso.centrale-marseille.fr/visible/SOURCES/python-svgwrite-1.1.3-pyparsing.patch I have also submitted a bug upstream to ask that svgwrite stops using pyparsing as a bundled library: https://bitbucket.org/mozman/svgwrite/pull-request/6/add-pyparsing-as-a-dependancy/diff
Good! This packages now Approved! Best Regards
Hi julien, @Luis will be responsible of mentoring in your first build of the package. So, i will to sponsor to you in the package maintainers group - Lifting FE-NEEDSPONSOR Follow the process from: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Add_Package_to_Source_Code_Management_.28SCM.29_system_and_Set_Owner
Thanks Eduardo! Julien please check http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests#New_Packages and create your new package request :-) Best Regards!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-svgwrite Short Description: Python library to create SVG drawings Owners: jujens Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
python-svgwrite-1.1.3-4.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-svgwrite-1.1.3-4.fc20
python-svgwrite-1.1.3-4.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-svgwrite-1.1.3-4.fc19
I have successfully created the new package request. Everything seems good to me. If I understand correctly the next steps of the process, I have to wait for the package to be pushed in testing and then either for it to have a karma of 3 or 1 week to manually push it into stable.
python-svgwrite-1.1.3-4.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.
python-svgwrite-1.1.3-4.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
python-svgwrite-1.1.3-4.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.