Spec URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/python-autowrap/python-autowrap.spec SRPM URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/python-autowrap/python-autowrap-0.2.14-1.20140321git26e901.fc20.src.rpm Description: This module uses the Cython "header" .pxd files to automatically generate Cython input (.pyx) files. It does so by parsing the header files and possibly annotations in the header files to generate correct Cython code. Fedora Account System Username: sagitter
* Source0 has invalid URL: INFO: Downloading (Source0): https://github.com/uweschmitt/autowrap/archive/autowrap-26e9016e3f99dbe746bd1e09d13ce65f836c8531.zip WARNING: Cannot download url: https://github.com/uweschmitt/autowrap/archive/autowrap-26e9016e3f99dbe746bd1e09d13ce65f836c8531.zip INFO: No upstream for (Source0): autowrap-26e9016e3f99dbe746bd1e09d13ce65f836c8531.zip ---> Please change Source0 to a working URL [1] * Version: 0.2.14 -- dafuq? ---> According to git-log in [2] upstream released 0.4.0 on 2014-02-04. [1] https://github.com/uweschmitt/autowrap/archive/%{commit}.tar.gz [2] https://github.com/uweschmitt/autowrap/commits/master
(In reply to Björn "besser82" Esser from comment #1) > * Source0 has invalid URL: > INFO: Downloading (Source0): > https://github.com/uweschmitt/autowrap/archive/autowrap- > 26e9016e3f99dbe746bd1e09d13ce65f836c8531.zip > WARNING: Cannot download url: > https://github.com/uweschmitt/autowrap/archive/autowrap- > 26e9016e3f99dbe746bd1e09d13ce65f836c8531.zip > INFO: No upstream for (Source0): > autowrap-26e9016e3f99dbe746bd1e09d13ce65f836c8531.zip > > ---> Please change Source0 to a working URL [1] Download link does not end with related zipped archive. Fixed. > > > * Version: 0.2.14 -- dafuq? > > ---> According to git-log in [2] upstream released 0.4.0 on 2014-02-04. > > > [1] https://github.com/uweschmitt/autowrap/archive/%{commit}.tar.gz > [2] https://github.com/uweschmitt/autowrap/commits/master Fixed. Spec URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/python-autowrap/python-autowrap.spec SRPM URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/python-autowrap/python-autowrap-0.4.0-1.20140321git26e901.fc20.src.rpm
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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 47 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/1103420-python- autowrap/licensecheck.txt ---> please ask upstream to prepend the actual license to the source-files. did you even read the LICENSE-file *BEFORE* packaging?!? License: GPLv3+ (spec) vs. License: BSD (LICENSE-file in src) Please refer to the process mentioned in: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.4, /usr/lib/python3.4/site- packages ---> owned on rawhide by python3-pkg. false positive! [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages, /usr/lib/python3.4 ---> owned on rawhide by python3-pkg. false positive! [!]: 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/tests(python-libturpial, python-django-federated-login) ---> are the files in %{pythonX_sitelib}/tests even needed at runtime? do they serve any special purpose? from my findings they are just useless clutter, because those are just a small excerpt from what is contained in the tarball's tests-dir. Double-check and use %exclude if appropriate, please! [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: 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 ---> there are some devel-files located in %{pythonX_sitelib}/autowrap/data_files, but they are needed for the intended use of the 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. [?]: 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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. ---> according to files located in %{pythonX_sitelib}/autowrap/data_files there is at least boost-devel needed, even at runtime of the package. Because the wrapper makes heavy use of boost's shared_ptr / smart_ptr. In conclusion to the way the package is meant to work the list of the minmal needed requires is: Requires: pythonX-devel, (python3-)Cython, boost-devel [!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. ---> spec-file has issues, refering to the packaging guidelines for Python-packages. [-]: 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 40960 bytes in 10 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines ---> severe issues are present. :( [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]: 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]: 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. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python ---> did you even read them *BEFORE* packaging? please read and understand these two: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Building_more_than_once http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Avoiding_collisions_between_the_python_2_and_python_3_stacks [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). ---> the python2-pkg requires /usr/bin/python3 ?!? [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-autowrap ---> python3-subpkg is meant to be independent from main-pkg. [!]: Package functions as described. ---> the python2-pkg requires /usr/bin/python3 ?!? [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments ---> as I already told you in comment #1: https://github.com/uweschmitt/autowrap/archive/%{checkout}.tar.gz will give you a working url for a src-tarball. If you'll append '#/%{name}-%{checkout}.tar.gz' to this you'll get a nicely named src-tarball when using `spectool`. [-]: 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. ---> testsuite is NOT run with Python3. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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. [!]: SourceX is a working URL. ---> as commented above [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-autowrap-0.4.0-1.20140321git26e901.fc21.noarch.rpm python3-autowrap-0.4.0-1.20140321git26e901.fc21.noarch.rpm python-autowrap-0.4.0-1.20140321git26e901.fc21.src.rpm python-autowrap.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pxd -> pd, pad, pod python-autowrap.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/autowrap/data_files/autowrap_tools.hpp ---> this one is needed for the package to function properly. It's used for 'autowrapping'. false positive! python-autowrap.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary autowrap python3-autowrap.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/autowrap/__pycache__/Types.cpython-34.pyo expected 3260 (3.4), found 3310 (unknown) … snip … python3-autowrap.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/autowrap/__pycache__/ConversionProvider.cpython-34.pyc expected 3260 (3.4), found 3310 (unknown) ---> this warning is a bug in rpmlint, which needs to be fixed there. false positive! python3-autowrap.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary autowrap python-autowrap.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pxd -> pd, pad, pod python-autowrap.src: W: invalid-url Source0: autowrap-26e9016e3f99dbe746bd1e09d13ce65f836c8531.zip ---> as stated above. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 32 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-autowrap python3-autowrap python-autowrap.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pxd -> pd, pad, pod python-autowrap.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/autowrap/data_files/autowrap_tools.hpp python-autowrap.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary autowrap python3-autowrap.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/autowrap/data_files/autowrap_tools.hpp python3-autowrap.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary autowrap 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' ---> as commented above. Requires -------- python-autowrap (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 ---> dafuq? python(abi) python3-autowrap (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) Provides -------- python-autowrap: python-autowrap python3-autowrap: python3-autowrap Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1103420 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-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 ===== Additional Information ===== * When thiking about the pkg's Requires and the intended functionality, I'm *strongly* tending to the conclusion, this *MUST* be arch'ed and needs to have %{?_isa}-Requires… * There is lots of rrom for improvement is the spec-file, but let's defer this to a point, when all severe issues are fixed up. * If you need help on packaging this correctly, you can contact me directly using IRC (besser82 in #fedora-devel, #fedora-mentors) or email (address is mentioned in rhbz comment headers). ===== Solution ===== NOT approved; severe issues found! Please fix those and I'll take another run on the package.
My approach with this package has been vague. Now it should be better. SPEC: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/python-autowrap/autowrap.spec SRPM: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/python-autowrap/autowrap-0.4.0-2.20140321git26e901.fc20.src.rpm - Fixed License - Fixed Requires package for python2/python3 - Excluded 'tests' directories by packaging - Performing building operations to packaging independent Python3 module - Disabled generation of the useless debuginfo package
(In reply to Björn "besser82" Esser from comment #3) > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass > [!] = Fail > [-] = Not applicable > [?] = Not evaluated > > > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: > "Unknown or generated". 47 files have unknown license. Detailed output > of > licensecheck in /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/1103420-python- > autowrap/licensecheck.txt > > ---> please ask upstream to prepend the actual license to the > source-files. > > did you even read the LICENSE-file *BEFORE* packaging?!? > > License: GPLv3+ (spec) vs. License: BSD (LICENSE-file in src) > > Please refer to the process mentioned in: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ > LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification I had not checked License file; it was a my mistake. https://github.com/uweschmitt/autowrap/issues/6 SPEC: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/python-autowrap/autowrap.spec SRPM: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/python-autowrap/autowrap-0.4.0-3.20140321git26e901.fc20.src.rpm - Removed conditional macros for EPEL - Fixed Source0
Koji build in rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6917582
New commit; fixed license headers. SPEC: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/python-autowrap/autowrap.spec SRPM: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/python-autowrap/autowrap-0.4.0-4.20140602gitebde9f.fc20.src.rpm
Release 0.5.0 SPEC: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/python-autowrap/autowrap.spec SRPM: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/python-autowrap/autowrap-0.5.0-1.20140603git1753b9.fc20.src.rpm
- Fixed nosetests command according to new default python3 stack on Fedora 21+ SPEC: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/python-autowrap/autowrap.spec SRPM: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/python-autowrap/autowrap-0.5.0-2.20140603git1753b9.fc20.src.rpm
Björn, please, can we go on?
Björn seems too busy in this time. I thank him in any case. I set fedora‑review flag to empty.
I will take this review.
Issues: 1. The package Requires are not right. The Requires that should be in the python3 subpackage are in the main package instead. But the Requires declaration for the python3 subpackage under "%package -n python3-autowrap". 2. Having said that, why are python2-devel/python3-devel needed? I can see the need for Cython and boost-devel, but why pythonX-devel? 3. I am not convinced that this package should be archful. What can go wrong if it is noarch? Also, rpmdiff shows that the only differences between i386 and x86_64 builds are in the byte compiled python files, which is probably just timestamp differences. So if something can go wrong if the package is noarch, then I believe that same thing will go wrong with the package as it is currently constituted. (Note also that the files are installed in %{pythonX_sitelib}, which is for non-arch-specific modules; they would go in %{pythonX_sitearch} otherwise.) 4. I question the usefulness of including CONCEPT and README_DEVELOP in %doc. Those do not seem to provide any information that users of this package will need. 5. The entry "%{__python3}-autowrap" in the python3 %files section is, in my opinion, an abuse of the %{__python3} macro. Please change that to read "%{_bindir}/python3-autowrap". 6. What is the purpose of the "find ... | sed ..." invocations in %prep? As far as I can see, they do exactly nothing. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 10 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]: 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 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. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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. [?]: 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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: autowrap-0.5.0-2.20140603git1753b9.fc22.x86_64.rpm python3-autowrap-0.5.0-2.20140603git1753b9.fc22.x86_64.rpm autowrap-0.5.0-2.20140603git1753b9.fc22.src.rpm autowrap.x86_64: E: devel-dependency boost-devel autowrap.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pxd -> pd, pad, pod autowrap.x86_64: E: no-binary autowrap.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/autowrap/data_files/autowrap_tools.hpp autowrap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary autowrap python3-autowrap.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/autowrap/data_files/autowrap_tools.hpp python3-autowrap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary python3-autowrap autowrap.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pxd -> pd, pad, pod 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint autowrap python3-autowrap autowrap.x86_64: E: devel-dependency boost-devel autowrap.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pxd -> pd, pad, pod autowrap.x86_64: E: no-binary autowrap.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/autowrap/data_files/autowrap_tools.hpp autowrap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary autowrap python3-autowrap.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/autowrap/data_files/autowrap_tools.hpp python3-autowrap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary python3-autowrap 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- autowrap (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python2 Cython boost-devel python(abi) python2-devel python3-Cython python3-devel python3-autowrap (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) Provides -------- autowrap: autowrap autowrap(x86-64) python3-autowrap: python3-autowrap python3-autowrap(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/uweschmitt/autowrap/archive/1753b9bf044559e18ca1ed39914405a2f8b4fca3.zip#/autowrap-1753b9bf044559e18ca1ed39914405a2f8b4fca3.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 55437ff3b792633c188bd49d84e21ba0672c2f274b91da01571274b9017b1409 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 55437ff3b792633c188bd49d84e21ba0672c2f274b91da01571274b9017b1409 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1103420 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #13) > Issues: > 1. The package Requires are not right. The Requires that should be in the > python3 subpackage are in the main package instead. But the Requires > declaration for the python3 subpackage under "%package -n > python3-autowrap". Ops! Fixed. > > 2. Having said that, why are python2-devel/python3-devel needed? I can see > the need for Cython and boost-devel, but why pythonX-devel? pythonX-devel files are used for testing ... gcc -pthread -fno-strict-aliasing -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -m64 -mtune=generic -D_GNU_SOURCE -fPIC -fwrapv -DNDEBUG -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -m64 -mtune=generic -D_GNU_SOURCE -fPIC -fwrapv -I/usr/include/boost -fPIC *-I/usr/include/python2.7* -c itertest.cpp -o build/temp.linux-x86_64-2.7/itertest.o -Wno-unused-but-set-variable > > 3. I am not convinced that this package should be archful. What can go wrong > if it is noarch? Also, rpmdiff shows that the only differences between > i386 and x86_64 builds are in the byte compiled python files, which is > probably just timestamp differences. So if something can go wrong if the > package is noarch, then I believe that same thing will go wrong with the > package as it is currently constituted. (Note also that the files are > installed in %{pythonX_sitelib}, which is for non-arch-specific modules; > they would go in %{pythonX_sitearch} otherwise.) This has been an explicit request in the previous review: >> When thiking about the pkg's Requires and the intended functionality, I'm >> *strongly* tending to the conclusion, this *MUST* be arch'ed and needs to >> have %{?_isa}-Requires… > > 4. I question the usefulness of including CONCEPT and README_DEVELOP in %doc. > Those do not seem to provide any information that users of this package > will need. Well, they are informations however on software development. > > 5. The entry "%{__python3}-autowrap" in the python3 %files section is, in my > opinion, an abuse of the %{__python3} macro. Please change that to read > "%{_bindir}/python3-autowrap". Okay, fixed. > > 6. What is the purpose of the "find ... | sed ..." invocations in %prep? As > far as I can see, they do exactly nothing. > They are copy residuals from another package. Fixed. SPEC: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/python-autowrap/autowrap.spec SRPM: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/python-autowrap/autowrap-0.5.0-3.20140603git1753b9.fc20.src.rpm Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7215646
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #14) > pythonX-devel files are used for testing Okay, thank you for the clarification. > This has been an explicit request in the previous review: > > >> When thiking about the pkg's Requires and the intended functionality, I'm > >> *strongly* tending to the conclusion, this *MUST* be arch'ed and needs to >> have %{?_isa}-Requires… I understand that. But if that reasoning is correct (and I don't think it is), then this package is still inadequate for a couple of reasons: - python2-devel and python3-devel are multi-arch, but this package Requires: pythonX-devel, not pythonX%{?_isa}-devel - If the intention is to make this package multi-arch, you've got a problem. Both the i386 and x86_64 builds install into %{pythonX_sitelib} (i.e., /usr/lib). The *.py files are identical, but due to timestamps, the .pyc and .pyo files are not, so the two packages conflict. If the intention is to NOT make this package multi-arch, then there is no point in making it arch-ful either, as only the native architecture version will be available. But I think the reasoning behind making this package arch-ful in the first place is flawed. This package is a code generator. It is going to generate the same code regardless of which architecture it runs on. *Something else* then consumes that code. In order for the code to compile, the something else needs boost-devel, and maybe pythonX-devel. That something else has to be arch-ful. Summary: I think this package should be noarch, and should only Requires: Cython (which it needs to run). It's up to whatever consumes the code that is produced by autowrap to BuildRequires: boost-devel (and maybe pythonX-devel), which will automatically make the arch correct. > > 4. I question the usefulness of including CONCEPT and README_DEVELOP in %doc. > > Those do not seem to provide any information that users of this package > > will need. > > Well, they are informations however on software development. Yes, they contain information on developing autowrap, but no information on developing other software *with* autowrap. The latter is useful documentation; the former is not. For example, here are the contents of README_DEVELOP: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To run the tests run nose as follows $ nosetests -w tests from the projects directory ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Users of autowrap do not want to run the nose tests. Developers of autowrap do. Similarly, CONCEPT contains information on how autowrap does its work internally. This is not useful information for users of autowrap; it is useful information for developers of autowrap. The information in %doc should be useful for the users of a package. Developers will download the sources anyway, so they will get this information in any case.
The package is noarch now. SPEC: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/python-autowrap/autowrap.spec SRPM: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/python-autowrap/autowrap-0.5.0-4.20140603git1753b9.fc20.src.rpm
This package now satisfies all of the review requirements. It is APPROVED.
Thank you Jerry. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: autowrap Short Description: Generates Python Extension modules from [Cython] PXD files Upstream URL: https://github.com/uweschmitt/autowrap Owners: sagitter Branches: f19 f20 f21
Git done (by process-git-requests).
autowrap-0.5.0-4.20140603git1753b9.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/autowrap-0.5.0-4.20140603git1753b9.fc19
autowrap-0.5.0-4.20140603git1753b9.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/autowrap-0.5.0-4.20140603git1753b9.fc20
autowrap-0.5.0-4.20140603git1753b9.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
autowrap-0.5.0-4.20140603git1753b9.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
autowrap-0.5.0-4.20140603git1753b9.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.