Spec URL: http://imcleod.fedorapeople.org/src/pyrax/pyrax.spec SRPM URL: http://imcleod.fedorapeople.org/src/pyrax/pyrax-1.9.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: pyrax is a client library for interacting with Rackspace and other OpenStack based clouds. It includes Rackspace-specific features not found in the generic Openstack clients Fedora Account System Username: imcleod
The fork that I am using for RPM-specific changes only is here: https://github.com/imcleod/pyrax
Per feedback from gholms I have redone the release string to indicate that this is a git snapshot from my fork. The new SRPM is: https://imcleod.fedorapeople.org/src/pyrax/python-pyrax-1.9.0-1.20140724gitee6acc6.fc20.src.rpm The SPEC and source files in this directory have been updated as well.
Most everything looks sane here. The package just needs updating to address a few complaints from rpmlint and changes in packaging guidelines over the past few years. I am also concerned about licensing for a bit of copypasted code that the software includes in utils.py, so perhaps we should bug legal about it to be sure that it is okay. Please fix: - Non-executable scripts (I would remove the #! lines from the top of python modules.) - Licensing: utils.py contains BSD code with no accompanying header, but the author appears to have not published said header. We might need to check with the legal team on this. - Add commentary that explains how to construct the tarball for your git snapshot. - Add BuildRequires: python2-devel. - Prepend "0." to the Release field. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages - Use %global to set %python_sitelib, not %define. - Use python2 instead of %{__python}. - Use %{python2_sitelib} instead of %{python_sitelib}. The wiki has boilerplate for the latter three here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros I also suggest: - Add a version to Provides: pyrax The nitty-gritty details follow. Mandatory review guidelines: NO - rpmlint output: python-pyrax.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python-httplib2 python-pyrax.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pyrax/version.py 0644L /usr/bin/env python-pyrax.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pyrax/queueing.py 0644L /usr/bin/env python-pyrax.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pyrax/identity/keystone_identity.py 0644L /usr/bin/env python-pyrax.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pyrax/base_identity.py 0644L /usr/bin/env python-pyrax.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pyrax/cloudblockstorage.py 0644L /usr/bin/env python-pyrax.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pyrax/utils.py 0644L /usr/bin/env python-pyrax.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pyrax/exceptions.py 0644L /usr/bin/env python-pyrax.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pyrax/cloudloadbalancers.py 0644L /usr/bin/env python-pyrax.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pyrax/autoscale.py 0644L /usr/bin/env python-pyrax.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pyrax/fakes.py 0644L /usr/bin/env python-pyrax.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pyrax/object_storage.py 0644L /usr/bin/env python-pyrax.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pyrax/clouddns.py 0644L /usr/bin/env python-pyrax.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pyrax/identity/__init__.py 0644L /usr/bin/env python-pyrax.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pyrax/cloudnetworks.py 0644L /usr/bin/env python-pyrax.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pyrax/identity/rax_identity.py 0644L /usr/bin/env python-pyrax.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pyrax/image.py 0644L /usr/bin/env python-pyrax.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pyrax/client.py 0644L /usr/bin/env python-pyrax.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pyrax/__init__.py 0644L /usr/bin/env python-pyrax.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pyrax/clouddatabases.py 0644L /usr/bin/env python-pyrax.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pyrax/cloudmonitoring.py 0644L /usr/bin/env python-pyrax.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cloudfiles -> cloud files, cloud-files, cloudless python-pyrax.src:14: W: unversioned-explicit-provides pyrax python-pyrax.src: W: file-size-mismatch pyrax-1.9.0.tar.gz = 310594, http://imcleod.fedorapeople.org/src/pyrax/pyrax-1.9.0.tar.gz = 310590 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 21 errors, 3 warnings. ok - License is acceptable (ASL 2.0) NO - License field in spec is correct utils.py includes third party BSD code without its corresponding notice. Original source contains no such notice; need to check with legal as to acceptability. ok - License files included in package %docs if included in source package Note that a guideline change to use the %license macro is pending: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/411 ok - License files installed when any subpackage combination is installed ok - Spec written in American English ok - Spec is legible NO - Sources match upstream unless altered to fix permissibility issues This is a git snapshot. Please include commentary that instructs one on how to construct the source tarball. ok - Build succeeds on at least one primary arch ok - Build succeeds on all primary arches or has ExcludeArch + justification NO - BuildRequires correct, justified where necessary Need to add BuildRequires: python2-devel -- - Locales handled with %find_lang, not %_datadir/locale/* -- - %post, %postun call ldconfig if package contains shared .so files ok - No bundled libs -- - Relocatability is justified ok - Package owns all directories it creates ok - Package requires others for directories it uses but does not own ok - No duplication in %files unless necessary for license files ok - File permissions are sane ok - Package contains permissible code or content -- - Large docs go in -doc subpackage ok - %doc files not required at runtime -- - Static libs go in -static package/virtual Provides -- - Development files go in -devel package -- - -devel packages Require base with fully-versioned dependency, %_isa -- - No .la files -- - GUI app uses .desktop file, installs it with desktop-file-install ok - File list does not conflict with other packages' without justification ok - File names are valid UTF-8 Optional review guidelines: -- - Query upstream about including license files no - Translations of description, summary ok - Builds in mock ok - Builds on all arches -- - Scriptlets are sane -- - Subpackages require base with fully-versioned dependency if sensible -- - .pc file subpackage placement is sensible ok - No file deps outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin -- - Include man pages if available Naming guidelines: ok - Package names use only a-zA-Z0-9-._+ subject to restrictions on -._+ ok - Package names are sane ok - No naming conflicts ok - Spec file name matches base package name "python" prefix mandated by python guidelines ok - Version is sane ok - Version does not contain ~ NO - Release is sane Pre-release snapshots must begin with "0." ok - %dist tag ok - Case used only when necessary ok - Package names follow applicable language/addon rules Packaging guidelines: ok - Useful without external bits ok - No kmods ok - Pre-built binaries, libs removed in %prep ok - Sources contain only redistributable code or content ok - Spec format is sane -- - noarch package with unported deps has correct ExclusiveArch -- - Arch-specific sources/patches are applied, not included, conditionally ok - Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir, /run, /usr/target -- - %{_prefix}/lib only used for multilib-exempt packages -- - Programs run before FS mounting use /run instead of /var/run ok - No files under /srv, /opt, /usr/local ok - Changelog in prescribed format ok - No Packager, Vendor, Copyright, PreReq tags ok - Summary does not end in a period ok - Requires correct, justified where necessary ok - BuildRequires lack %{_isa} ok - Summary, description do not use trademarks incorrectly ok - All relevant documentation is packaged, appropriately marked with %doc ok - Doc files do not drag in extra dependencies (e.g. due to +x) -- - Code compilable with gcc is compiled with gcc -- - Build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise -- - PIE used for long-running/root daemons, setuid/filecap programs -- - Useful -debuginfo package or disabled and justified -- - No static executables (except OCaml) -- - Rpath absent or only used for internal libs -- - Config files marked with %config(noreplace) or justified %config ok - No config files under /usr -- - Third party package manager configs acceptable, only in %_docdir -- - .desktop files are sane -- - desktop-file-install/validate run on .desktop files, as appropriate -- - No desktop-file-install --vendor on >= F19 ok - Spec uses macros consistently ok - Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded names where appropriate NO - Spec uses macros for executables only when configurability is needed %{__python} is deprecated; use python2 or %{__python2} instead -- - %makeinstall used only when alternatives don't work -- - Macros in Summary, description are expandable at srpm build time -- - Spec uses %{SOURCE#} instead of $RPM_SOURCE_DIR and %sourcedir ok - No software collections (scl) -- - Macro files named /etc/rpm/macros.%name or /usr/lib/rpm/macros.%name -- - Macro files not marked with %config ok - Build uses only python/perl/shell+coreutils/lua/BuildRequired langs NO - %global, not %define Use %global to set %python_sitelib, not %define -- - Package translating with gettext BuildRequires it -- - Package translating with Linguist BuildRequires qt-devel -- - File ops preserve timestamps -- - Parallel make -- - User, group creation handled correctly (See Packaging:UsersAndGroups) -- - Web apps go in /usr/share/%name, not /var/www -- - Conflicts are justified ok - One project per package ok - No bundled fonts -- - Patches have appropriate commentary no - Available test suites executed in %check -- - tmpfiles.d used for /run, /run/lock on >= F15 -- - Package renaming/replacement handled correctly ok - Package builds without network access Python guidelines: ok - Runtime Requires correct NO - BuildRequires: python2-devel and/or python3-devel python2-devel is required NO - Spec uses versioned macros Use python2 or %{__python2} instead of %{__python} Use %{python2_sitelib} instead of %{python_sitelib} For boilerplate see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros ok - All .py files packaged with .pyc, .pyo counterparts ok - INSTALLED_FILES not used for %files list ok - Includes .egg-info files/directories when generated ok - .py not under site-libs byte-compiled against correct runtimes -- - Python 3 built as upstream instructs, if at all -- - Patches are not specific to python 2 or 3 when sources are combined -- - Non-parallel-installable scripts only installed for default runtime ok - Eggs built from source ok - Eggs do not download deps during build -- - Compat packages use easy_install -m to avoid conflicts ok - At least one version of each module must be importable w/o version ok - Provides/Requires properly filtered -- - Code that invokes gtk.gdk.get_pixels_array() Requires numpy
I believe all the above concerns are addressed in: https://imcleod.fedorapeople.org/src/pyrax/python-pyrax-1.9.0-1.20140728git2c89bfc.fc20.src.rpm With one exception. Because this is based off of the official upstream 1.9.0 release I have given it a release string of "1." plus the date and git tags. The tarball and SPEC in the /src/pyrax directory are updated as well.
OK. Let's try that again: https://imcleod.fedorapeople.org/src/pyrax/python-pyrax-1.9.0-1.20140728gitb3b5f09.fc20.src.rpm Details are at: https://github.com/imcleod/pyrax/tree/release/1.9.0-fedora-take2
OK. Based on further discussion, here is a cleanly named incremental change: https://imcleod.fedorapeople.org/src/pyrax/python-pyrax-1.9.0-2.fc20.src.rpm Details remain at the same upstream git location. I have committed to maintaining an accurate RPM changelog as long as I am responsible for package builds.
That looks good to me. Thanks! I would also like to note that although Ian intends to maintain this package's spec file in the upstream source tree rather than Fedora's, he has committed to merging changes from Fedora's packaging repository and not simply overwriting them. Just don't forget to be vigilant about that, Ian. 8^) I also suggest: - Provide a pyrax release as well (Provides: pyrax = %{version}-%{release}) - Use %license for the COPYING file instead of %doc Mandatory review guidelines: ok - rpmlint output: python-pyrax.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cloudfiles -> cloud files, cloud-files, cloudless 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. ok - License is acceptable (ASL 2.0) ok - License field in spec is correct ok - License files included in package %docs if included in source package Note that a guideline change to use the %license macro is pending: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/411 ok - License files installed when any subpackage combination is installed ok - Spec written in American English ok - Spec is legible ok - Sources match upstream unless altered to fix permissibility issues ok - Build succeeds on at least one primary arch ok - Build succeeds on all primary arches or has ExcludeArch + justification ok - BuildRequires correct, justified where necessary -- - Locales handled with %find_lang, not %_datadir/locale/* -- - %post, %postun call ldconfig if package contains shared .so files ok - No bundled libs -- - Relocatability is justified ok - Package owns all directories it creates ok - Package requires others for directories it uses but does not own ok - No duplication in %files unless necessary for license files ok - File permissions are sane ok - Package contains permissible code or content -- - Large docs go in -doc subpackage ok - %doc files not required at runtime -- - Static libs go in -static package/virtual Provides -- - Development files go in -devel package -- - -devel packages Require base with fully-versioned dependency, %_isa -- - No .la files -- - GUI app uses .desktop file, installs it with desktop-file-install ok - File list does not conflict with other packages' without justification ok - File names are valid UTF-8 Optional review guidelines: -- - Query upstream about including license files no - Translations of description, summary ok - Builds in mock ok - Builds on all arches -- - Scriptlets are sane -- - Subpackages require base with fully-versioned dependency if sensible -- - .pc file subpackage placement is sensible ok - No file deps outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin -- - Include man pages if available Naming guidelines: ok - Package names use only a-zA-Z0-9-._+ subject to restrictions on -._+ ok - Package names are sane ok - No naming conflicts ok - Spec file name matches base package name "python" prefix mandated by python guidelines ok - Version is sane ok - Version does not contain ~ ok - Release is sane ok - %dist tag ok - Case used only when necessary ok - Package names follow applicable language/addon rules Packaging guidelines: ok - Useful without external bits ok - No kmods ok - Pre-built binaries, libs removed in %prep ok - Sources contain only redistributable code or content ok - Spec format is sane -- - noarch package with unported deps has correct ExclusiveArch -- - Arch-specific sources/patches are applied, not included, conditionally ok - Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir, /run, /usr/target -- - %{_prefix}/lib only used for multilib-exempt packages -- - Programs run before FS mounting use /run instead of /var/run ok - No files under /srv, /opt, /usr/local ok - Changelog in prescribed format ok - No Packager, Vendor, Copyright, PreReq tags ok - Summary does not end in a period ok - Requires correct, justified where necessary ok - BuildRequires lack %{_isa} ok - Summary, description do not use trademarks incorrectly ok - All relevant documentation is packaged, appropriately marked with %doc ok - Doc files do not drag in extra dependencies (e.g. due to +x) -- - Code compilable with gcc is compiled with gcc -- - Build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise -- - PIE used for long-running/root daemons, setuid/filecap programs -- - Useful -debuginfo package or disabled and justified -- - No static executables (except OCaml) -- - Rpath absent or only used for internal libs -- - Config files marked with %config(noreplace) or justified %config ok - No config files under /usr -- - Third party package manager configs acceptable, only in %_docdir -- - .desktop files are sane -- - desktop-file-install/validate run on .desktop files, as appropriate -- - No desktop-file-install --vendor on >= F19 ok - Spec uses macros consistently ok - Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded names where appropriate ok - Spec uses macros for executables only when configurability is needed -- - %makeinstall used only when alternatives don't work -- - Macros in Summary, description are expandable at srpm build time -- - Spec uses %{SOURCE#} instead of $RPM_SOURCE_DIR and %sourcedir ok - No software collections (scl) -- - Macro files named /etc/rpm/macros.%name or /usr/lib/rpm/macros.%name -- - Macro files not marked with %config ok - Build uses only python/perl/shell+coreutils/lua/BuildRequired langs -- - %global, not %define -- - Package translating with gettext BuildRequires it -- - Package translating with Linguist BuildRequires qt-devel -- - File ops preserve timestamps -- - Parallel make -- - User, group creation handled correctly (See Packaging:UsersAndGroups) -- - Web apps go in /usr/share/%name, not /var/www -- - Conflicts are justified ok - One project per package ok - No bundled fonts -- - Patches have appropriate commentary no - Available test suites executed in %check -- - tmpfiles.d used for /run, /run/lock on >= F15 -- - Package renaming/replacement handled correctly ok - Package builds without network access Python guidelines: ok - Runtime Requires correct ok - BuildRequires: python2-devel and/or python3-devel ok - Spec uses versioned macros ok - All .py files packaged with .pyc, .pyo counterparts ok - INSTALLED_FILES not used for %files list ok - Includes .egg-info files/directories when generated ok - .py not under site-libs byte-compiled against correct runtimes -- - Python 3 built as upstream instructs, if at all -- - Patches are not specific to python 2 or 3 when sources are combined -- - Non-parallel-installable scripts only installed for default runtime ok - Eggs built from source ok - Eggs do not download deps during build -- - Compat packages use easy_install -m to avoid conflicts ok - At least one version of each module must be importable w/o version ok - Provides/Requires properly filtered -- - Code that invokes gtk.gdk.get_pixels_array() Requires numpy
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-pyrax Short Description: Python bindings for Rackspace and OpenStack clouds Upstream URL: https://github.com/rackspace/pyrax Owners: imcleod Branches: f19 f20 f21 el6 epel7 InitialCC:
WARNING: Requested package name python-pyrax doesn't match bug summary pyrax
Jon, pyrax is the name of the upstream project During the review process I updated the RPM name from just "pyrax" to "python-pyrax" per feedback from gholms (to meet Fedora package naming standards). I have changed the bug summary just now to reflect this and am re-setting fedora-cvs to ? If this is not acceptable please let me know what I need to do. The package, as named, has been approved and I'd really like to start executing some builds.
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Closing to, one hopes, complete the new process submission process.