Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Hubbitus/Fedora-packaging/master/SPECS/python-cjson.spec SRPM URL: http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora20/python-cjson/python-cjson-1.1.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: This module implements a very fast JSON encoder/decoder for Python. JSON stands for JavaScript Object Notation and is a text based lightweight data exchange format which is easy for humans to read/write and for machines to parse/generate. JSON is completely language independent and has multiple implementations in most of the programming languages, making it ideal for data exchange and storage. The module is written in C and it is up to 250 times faster when compared to the other python JSON implementations which are written directly in python. This speed gain varies with the complexity of the data and the operation and is the the range of 10-200 times for encoding operations and in the range of 100-250 times for decoding operations. Fedora Account System Username: Hubbitus
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #1) > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires Hm. Thanks to pointing. Unfortunately I do not very familiar with python. How I could determine for what python version package supposed for? Official page https://pypi.python.org/pypi/python-cjson does not clear it for me. I've built blink with all its dependencies on my Fedora 20 box without explicit version set. If I understand correctly there 2.7 version is default. So I must use BuildRequires: python2-devel in my spec. Right?
(In reply to Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) from comment #2) > (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #1) > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires > Hm. Thanks to pointing. Unfortunately I do not very familiar with python. > How I could determine for what python version package supposed for? Hmm...Basically you can try python2, if you have time, use python3 template and try a build. The best solution is to ask upstream directly, or based on daily usage. Drop %{!?python_sitearch: %global python_sitearch %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib(1))")}.
Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7426407 Spec changes: https://github.com/Hubbitus/Fedora-packaging/commit/68b24c7d24fb6bbf6fe57561e30b7d18a8f7b7f4 Spec: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Hubbitus/Fedora-packaging/68b24c7d24fb6bbf6fe57561e30b7d18a8f7b7f4/SPECS/python-cjson.spec Srpm: http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora20/python-cjson/python-cjson-1.1.0-2.fc20.src.rpm
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Permissions on files are set properly. Note: See rpmlint output See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions - Package do not use a name that already exist Note: A package already exist with this name, please check https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/python-cjson See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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]: 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck: LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address) ------------------------------------------------- python-cjson-1.1.0/jsontest.py Unknown or generated -------------------- python-cjson-1.1.0/cjson.c python-cjson-1.1.0/setup.py [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. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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. [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: [x]: 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. [x]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-cjson-1.1.0-2.fc22.i686.rpm python-cjson-1.1.0-2.fc22.src.rpm python-cjson.i686: W: no-documentation python-cjson.i686: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/cjson.so 0775L 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-cjson python-cjson.i686: W: no-documentation python-cjson.i686: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/cjson.so 0775L 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python-cjson (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6 libpthread.so.0 libpython2.7.so.1.0 python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- python-cjson: python-cjson python-cjson(x86-32) Unversioned so-files -------------------- python-cjson: /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/cjson.so Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/python-cjson/python-cjson-1.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a01fabb7593728c3d851e1cd9a3efbd18f72650a31a5aa8a74018640da3de8b3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a01fabb7593728c3d851e1cd9a3efbd18f72650a31a5aa8a74018640da3de8b3 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -rvn python-cjson-1.1.0-2.fc20.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 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 -------------------------------------- Is it possible to run the test in %check for you?
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #5) > Issues: > ======= > - Permissions on files are set properly. > Note: See rpmlint output > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions Sorry, I don't see such warning on my Fedora 20 box nor Rawhide test. What rpmlint version are you use? And what permissions on that file you think should be? > - Package do not use a name that already exist > Note: A package already exist with this name, please check > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/python-cjson This is not collision name. It is the same package which is retired for devel and Fedora 20. And it happened Tue Oct 1 10:05:41 2013 +0200 so re-review needed. It also orphaned in EPEL 5,6. So I think there should not be a problem if I became its maintainer. > -------------------------------------- > Is it possible to run the test in %check for you? Sure. https://github.com/Hubbitus/Fedora-packaging/commit/9df7e97593d3290afc2af397ad788b622a4410ce https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Hubbitus/Fedora-packaging/9df7e97593d3290afc2af397ad788b622a4410ce/SPECS/python-cjson.spec http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora20/python-cjson/python-cjson-1.1.0-3.fc20.src.rpm
(In reply to Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) from comment #6) > > Issues: > > ======= > > - Permissions on files are set properly. > > Note: See rpmlint output > > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions > Sorry, I don't see such warning on my Fedora 20 box nor Rawhide test. What > rpmlint version are you use? I've seen this for many times _on my computer_, sigh... I'm confused as well. You can ignore this. > > - Package do not use a name that already exist > > Note: A package already exist with this name, please check > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/python-cjson > This is not collision name. It is the same package which is retired for > devel and Fedora 20. And it happened Tue Oct 1 10:05:41 2013 +0200 so > re-review needed. It also orphaned in EPEL 5,6. > So I think there should not be a problem if I became its maintainer. I know this ;) Don't be worried. ==================== 1. %doc is empty, you should include changelog and license file. 2. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros
Changes: https://github.com/Hubbitus/Fedora-packaging/commit/a1b5dbeebe4d07392026bae60211d38c48260eb5 Spec: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Hubbitus/Fedora-packaging/a1b5dbeebe4d07392026bae60211d38c48260eb5/SPECS/python-cjson.spec Srpm: http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora20/python-cjson/python-cjson-1.1.0-4.fc20.src.rpm
Argh....... %{python_sitearch}/* -> %{python2_sitearch}/* I've mentioned it several times.
Sorry. Changes: https://github.com/Hubbitus/Fedora-packaging/commit/fa368ce50dd0ffa719a3a5acc6222da404fd8266 Spec: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Hubbitus/Fedora-packaging/fa368ce50dd0ffa719a3a5acc6222da404fd8266/SPECS/python-cjson.spec Srpm: http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora20/python-cjson/python-cjson-1.1.0-5.fc20.src.rpm
Christopher thank you very much for the review. Could I do some for you? Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: python-cjson New Branches: f20 f21 el6 узуд7 Owners: Hubbitus As it discussed early package already exists in Fedora, but retired for master and а20 branches and orphaned for el5 and el6. Epel7 does not exists as I se. So I would became new maintainer and resurrect it with new version.
I changed ownership, but our script cannot parse узуд7, which in any case is not a valid branch, please resubmit with epel7.
Big sorry for my second mistake today. Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: python-cjson New Branches: epel7 Owners: hubbitus
Git done (by process-git-requests).
I've got: BuildError: package python-cjson is blocked for tag f22 Is there something wrong with SCM processing?
No, but it takes time for it to be automatically unblocked in rawhide, if it doesn't occur in the next hour or so follow up with rel-eng.
Rel-eng ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6021
(In reply to Jon Ciesla from comment #16) > No, but it takes time for it to be automatically unblocked in rawhide, if it > doesn't occur in the next hour or so follow up with rel-eng. There is no automation for unblocking retired packages, but it will be made automatically when the branch request processing will be moved to PKGDB after F21 was released.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: python-cjson New Branches: f21 Owners: hubbitus
python-cjson-1.1.0-5.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-cjson-1.1.0-5.el7
Thank you very much.
python-cjson-1.1.0-5.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-cjson-1.1.0-5.fc21
python-cjson-1.1.0-5.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-cjson-1.1.0-5.fc20
python-cjson-1.1.0-5.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository.
Time to push it to stable?
Sorry for the delay. Has been pushed.
python-cjson-1.1.0-5.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.
python-cjson-1.1.0-5.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.
python-cjson-1.1.0-5.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.