Spec URL: http://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-bloom/python-bloom.spec SRPM URL: http://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-bloom/python-bloom-0.5.2-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Bloom provides tools for releasing software on top of a git repository and leverages tools and patterns from git-buildpackage. Additionally, bloom leverages meta and build information from catkin (https://github.com/ros/catkin) to automate release branching and the generation of platform specific source packages, like debian's src-debs. Fedora Account System Username: cottsay Koji scratch builds: F19: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6713357 F20: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6713359 rpmlint output: 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 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 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 17 warnings. Thanks, --scott
*** Bug 987843 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Looks pretty straightforward, I'll do a full review tonight.
I think it would be better to grab the source for the package from https://github.com/ros-infrastructure/bloom/releases using the github source guidelines at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github The source at github has the documentation included that can be built and installed with the package. It also contains a LICENSE file. I also am having trouble running the commands after I install bloom: $ bloom-generate Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/bin/bloom-generate", line 5, in <module> from pkg_resources import load_entry_point File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources.py", line 2793, in <module> working_set.require(__requires__) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources.py", line 673, in require needed = self.resolve(parse_requirements(requirements)) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources.py", line 576, in resolve raise DistributionNotFound(req) pkg_resources.DistributionNotFound: distribute I'm not sure if I need more command line switches, or if I'm missing a dependency somewhere. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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]: 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. [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. [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 10240 bytes in 1 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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. [-]: 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. [x]: %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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-bloom-0.5.2-1.fc20.noarch.rpm python-bloom-0.5.2-1.fc20.src.rpm 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 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 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 17 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-bloom 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 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 14 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python-bloom (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/make /usr/bin/python2 PyYAML python(abi) python-catkin_pkg python-dateutil python-empy python-rosdep python-rosdistro python-setuptools python-vcstools Provides -------- python-bloom: python-bloom Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/b/bloom/bloom-0.5.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 41208ade8f899029f6cd72c8acbe90bbd80aa5fb6df19e380583f6a48b252f07 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 41208ade8f899029f6cd72c8acbe90bbd80aa5fb6df19e380583f6a48b252f07 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1084865 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
Great points, Rich. Github URL: done Package HTML with docs: done Package man page: done As for the distribute error, it looks like a legacy python dependency in the setup.py. I've filed upstream [1] to have the dependency either fixed or removed. For now, I patched the dependency to be on setuptools instead of distribute, but I'm fairly certain it doesn't need to be there at all (that is, only needs to be a build dep, not an install dep). The reason that I never hit this in my testing is because I used pip to install bloom at one point or another, which installed distribute. Good catch. Spec URL: http://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-bloom/python-bloom.spec SRPM URL: http://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-bloom/python-bloom-0.5.2-1.fc20.src.rpm Koji scratch builds: F19: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6716996 F20: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6716994 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 [1] https://github.com/ros-infrastructure/bloom/issues/265
OK the package looks good now. This package is APPROVED. "bloom-generate" is still broken for me, but I tracked it down to rosdistro's egg-info/requires.txt also depending on distribute instead of setuptools. I'll build an update of python-rosdistro tonight with a similar fix to the one that you applied to bloom. Are you using rosdistro from the Fedora repositories? Or is it that you still have distribute installed from pip which quietly satisfies rosdistro's dependency as well? And for future reference, it's common practice to bump the dist tag and create a new changelog entry when making revisions to your package during the review. That way reviewers don't get confused as to "i thought i already downloaded and built -1." It's not uncommon to be on -4 or -5 of a package by the time it gets accepted into Fedora.
rosdistro updates have been submitted for f19+ with deps on setuptools instead of distribute.
I must have still had some remnant of distribute installed. I'm glad we're working this fix into rosdistro as well. I'll be sure to bump releases from here on out...thanks for the heads-up.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-bloom Short Description: Bloom is a release automation tool for catkin packages Owners: cottsay rmattes Branches: f19 f20 el6 epel7 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
python-bloom-0.5.4-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-bloom-0.5.4-1.el6
python-bloom-0.5.4-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-bloom-0.5.4-1.fc20
python-bloom-0.5.4-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-bloom-0.5.4-1.fc19
python-bloom-0.5.4-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.
python-bloom-0.5.4-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
python-bloom-0.5.4-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
python-bloom-0.5.4-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.