Spec URL: https://mstuchli.fedorapeople.org/python-unp.spec SRPM URL: https://mstuchli.fedorapeople.org/python-unp-0.2-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: unp is a command line tool that can unpack archives easily. It mainly acts as a wrapper around other shell tools that you can find on various POSIX systems. Fedora Account System Username: mstuchli
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues ====== - Latest upstream release is now 0.3 - You must include a license file if upstream decides to not distribute it in the sources. You can pull the license text copy from Github repository, and you should contact upstream to get this mistake corrected. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text - Since this is not a Python addon module, unp would be a better name. - Upstream source tarball timestamps are not preserved. Please download it using a client using proper options. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps - Fix the shebangs for both Python 2 and Python 3 scripts. This can solve the problem: %if 0%{?with_python3} rm -rf %{py3dir} cp -a . %{py3dir} find %{py3dir} -name '*.py' | xargs sed -i '1s|^#!python|#!%{__python3}|' %endif # with_python3 find -name '*.py' | xargs sed -i '1s|^#!python|#!%{__python2}|' - Change BR python-devel to python2-devel. - There's a test suite that you should run in %check. - The summary can be improved. "unp is"... is superfluous, simple leave it as: A command line tool that can unpack archives easily - python-setuptools is not a runtime dependency, so you can drop this Requires. - We only have click 2.4 in F20, so this will only work in F21+. When I run it in my F20: [makerpm@localhost 1134340-python-unp]$ unp Traceback (most recent call last): File "/bin/unp", line 5, in <module> from pkg_resources import load_entry_point File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources.py", line 2797, in <module> parse_requirements(__requires__), Environment() File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources.py", line 576, in resolve raise DistributionNotFound(req) pkg_resources.DistributionNotFound: click>=3.0 ===== 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. [-]: 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: "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. licensecheck output: Unknown or generated -------------------- unp-0.2/%{py3dir}/setup.py unp-0.2/setup.py unp-0.2/unp.py [!]: 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/site-packages, /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/__pycache__, /usr/lib/python3.4 [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages, /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/__pycache__, /usr/lib/python3.4 [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]: 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 20480 bytes in 2 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [!]: 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. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-unp [!]: 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. [x]: 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: [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-unp-0.2-1.fc22.noarch.rpm python3-unp-0.2-1.fc22.noarch.rpm python-unp-0.2-1.fc22.src.rpm python-unp.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C unp is a command line tool that can unpack archives easily python-unp.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary unp python3-unp.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C unp is a command line tool that can unpack archives easily python-unp.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C unp is a command line tool that can unpack archives easily 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-unp python3-unp python-unp.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C unp is a command line tool that can unpack archives easily python-unp.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary unp python3-unp.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C unp is a command line tool that can unpack archives easily 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python-unp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python2 python(abi) python-click python-setuptools python3-unp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-click python3-setuptools Provides -------- python-unp: python-unp python3-unp: python3-unp Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/u/unp/unp-0.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e0f4b4512ff4e4bfa2655a3625f18f7a52ec84f5cc99a2501ba6a981edd35b39 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e0f4b4512ff4e4bfa2655a3625f18f7a52ec84f5cc99a2501ba6a981edd35b39
(In reply to Eduardo Mayorga from comment #1) > Issues > ====== > - Latest upstream release is now 0.3 Done, mitsuhiko is flying. > - You must include a license file if upstream decides to not distribute it > in the sources. You can pull the license text copy from Github repository, > and you should contact upstream to get this mistake corrected. > See: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text License included, I'll let upstream know later today. > - Since this is not a Python addon module, unp would be a better name. I was operating under the assumption that someone may want to use it as a module, but I suppose that's not really the case, so... Done. Given this, I will also drop the python3 subpackage, and will use python3 in the base package. > - Upstream source tarball timestamps are not preserved. Please download it > using a client using proper options. > See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps Done. > - Fix the shebangs for both Python 2 and Python 3 scripts. This can solve > the problem: > %if 0%{?with_python3} > rm -rf %{py3dir} > cp -a . %{py3dir} > find %{py3dir} -name '*.py' | xargs sed -i '1s|^#!python|#!%{__python3}|' > %endif # with_python3 > > find -name '*.py' | xargs sed -i '1s|^#!python|#!%{__python2}|' This shouldn't be necessary, setuptools take care of it, check the rpm archive. > - Change BR python-devel to python2-devel. Done. > - There's a test suite that you should run in %check. Could you please point me to the test suite? I can't seem to find it. > - The summary can be improved. "unp is"... is superfluous, simple leave it > as: A command line tool that can unpack archives easily Done. > - python-setuptools is not a runtime dependency, so you can drop this > Requires. I don't believe you're correct here, from /usr/bin/unp: from pkg_resources import load_entry_point pkg_resources is provided by setuptools. > - We only have click 2.4 in F20, so this will only work in F21+. When I run > it in my F20: > [makerpm@localhost 1134340-python-unp]$ unp > Traceback (most recent call last): > File "/bin/unp", line 5, in <module> > from pkg_resources import load_entry_point > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources.py", line 2797, in > <module> > parse_requirements(__requires__), Environment() > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources.py", line 576, in > resolve > raise DistributionNotFound(req) > pkg_resources.DistributionNotFound: click>=3.0 I am aware of that. The click maintainer isn't planning on updating it in f20, so I'll only add unp to f21+. New Spec URL: https://mstuchli.fedorapeople.org/unp.spec New SRPM URL: https://mstuchli.fedorapeople.org/unp-0.3-1.fc20.src.rpm
(In reply to Matej Stuchlik from comment #2) > (In reply to Eduardo Mayorga from comment #1) > > - There's a test suite that you should run in %check. > > Could you please point me to the test suite? I can't seem to find it. Running $ python setup.py test only checks for dependencies, so it can be skipped. > > - python-setuptools is not a runtime dependency, so you can drop this > > Requires. > > I don't believe you're correct here, from /usr/bin/unp: > > from pkg_resources import load_entry_point > > pkg_resources is provided by setuptools. I had missed that. Sorry. 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/makerpm/reviews/1134340-unp/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages, /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/__pycache__, /usr/lib/python3.4 [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages, /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/__pycache__, /usr/lib/python3.4 [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]: 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 2 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. [-]: 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). [?]: 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: unp-0.3-1.fc22.noarch.rpm unp-0.3-1.fc22.src.rpm unp.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary unp 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint unp unp.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary unp 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- unp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3-click python3-setuptools Provides -------- unp: unp Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/u/unp/unp-0.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 234807c6db6f802cf25509dd495f7978516f1d04eecd6f0acfef0ac76cba6009 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 234807c6db6f802cf25509dd495f7978516f1d04eecd6f0acfef0ac76cba6009 https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mitsuhiko/unp/a9508c8de46b58cdbfcae5c0bad65df0754e88d4/LICENSE : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ca5da925ab8f92d6902170575b9298db099d92060a12af203d409b8d41145a6e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ca5da925ab8f92d6902170575b9298db099d92060a12af203d409b8d41145a6e PACKAGE APPROVED.
Thanks for the review! :)
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: unp Short Description: A command line tool that can unpack archives easily Upstream URL: http://github.com/mitsuhiko/unp/ Owners: mstuchli Branches: f21 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
unp-0.3-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/unp-0.3-1.fc21
unp-0.3-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository.
unp-0.3-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.