Created attachment 967892 [details]
csvdiff man page

The next Fedora version will probably ship Python 3 as default, and csvdiff should build with that (at least setup.py says so). Would be nice to also build the Python 3 version, or only that one.

However, here's the current rpmlint output:

$ rpmlint -i -v *
csvdiff.noarch: I: checking
csvdiff.noarch: I: checking-url https://github.com/larsyencken/csvdiff (timeout 10 seconds)
csvdiff.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/csvdiff/__init__.py 0644L /usr/bin/env
This text file contains a shebang or is located in a path dedicated for
executables, but lacks the executable bits and cannot thus be executed.  If
the file is meant to be an executable script, add the executable bits,
otherwise remove the shebang or move the file elsewhere.

csvdiff.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary csvdiff
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.

csvdiff.src: I: checking
csvdiff.src: I: checking-url https://github.com/larsyencken/csvdiff (timeout 10 seconds)
csvdiff.src: E: invalid-spec-name
Your spec filename must end with '.spec'. If it's not the case, rename your
file and rebuild your package.

csvdiff.src: I: checking-url https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/c/csvdiff/csvdiff-0.1.0.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds)
csvdiff.spec: I: checking
csvdiff.spec: I: checking-url https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/c/csvdiff/csvdiff-0.1.0.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings.


Please remove the shebang from /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/csvdiff/__init__.py, scripts in %{pythonx_sitelib} don't need a shebang at all.

The wrong invalid-spec-name error is bogus, the file is named csvdiff.spec as usual.

The missing manual page is not up to you to add, but you might contact the upstream maintainer to add one. I've taken some stuff from the Github site and wrote a man page, see the attachment.

Spec URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/csvdiff.spec
SRPM URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/csvdiff-0.1.0-2.fc20.src.rpm

Thanks for the feedback:

# Patched the shebang for files in %%{_bindir}
# Build with python3
# Request upstream to add a manpage (https://github.com/larsyencken/csvdiff/issues/5)

Looks like test is faling :( I have noticed upstream about that (https://github.com/larsyencken/csvdiff/issues/3)

First, the srpm link is unusable, the "f20" is wrong and should be "f21". No problem, I've downloaded the file from the correct location:
SRPM URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/csvdiff-0.1.0-2.fc21.src.rpm

Here's the scratch build on Koji:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8493145

$ rpmlint -i -v *
csvdiff.noarch: I: checking
csvdiff.noarch: I: checking-url https://github.com/larsyencken/csvdiff (timeout 10 seconds)
csvdiff.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary csvdiff
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.

csvdiff.src: I: checking
csvdiff.src: I: checking-url https://github.com/larsyencken/csvdiff (timeout 10 seconds)
csvdiff.src: I: checking-url https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/c/csvdiff/csvdiff-0.1.0.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds)
csvdiff.spec: I: checking
csvdiff.spec: I: checking-url https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/c/csvdiff/csvdiff-0.1.0.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Besides a warning abot the missing man page, nothing of interest.


---------------------------------
key:

[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
---------------------------------

[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
    BSD
[+] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
    $ sha256sum *
    19f8304b464514ede58f56c4b7a6e10dbb5bdffc14ccadeb0e2380da5d6eb08d  csvdiff-0.1.0.tar.gz
    19f8304b464514ede58f56c4b7a6e10dbb5bdffc14ccadeb0e2380da5d6eb08d  csvdiff-0.1.0.tar.gz.orig

[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[.] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[.] MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. 
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.


[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[.] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
    See Koji build above (which uses Mock anyway).
[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
[.] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
[.] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
[.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency.
[.] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb.
[.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself.
[.] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.
    Man page addition has been requested upstream.

The "Requires:" section contains a superfluous entry:

$ rpm -qpR csvdiff-0.1.0-2.fc21noarch.rpm
/usr/bin/python3
PyYAML
python(abi) = 3.4
python3
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PartialHardlinkSets) <= 4.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1

"python3" is not needed because rpm finds it as "python(abi) = 3.4" (and "/usr/bin/python3" anyway). Please remove it from Requires. Even the BuildRequires could be shrinked a bit, "python3-devel" depends on "python3", so the latter could be safely removed.

Regarding the failing tests, you might add a %check section and make it optional in the spec, as follows:

%global with_tests 0
...
%if 0%{?with_tests}
%check
%{__python3} setup.py test
%endif # with_tests

Although you disable the tests for the time being, the spec would become more future-proof. For the failing tests itself, you should contact the upstream maintainer. Maybe an extra Python 3 package is needed for the tests, eventually not packaged yet for Fedora...?

Spec URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/csvdiff.spec
SRPM URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/csvdiff-0.1.0-3.fc21.src.rpm

Sorry for the bugus link 

The error in %test is reported to upstream: https://github.com/larsyencken/csvdiff/issues/3

I have remoced python3 from Requires and Builrequires, also I skip the test, thank for that!!

OK, looks fine now. Still two typos in %changelog:

"Clean Requires anb BuildRequires" (anb → and)
"Fix sheban in %%{_bindir}" (sheban → shebang)

Please fix the typos before you import the package into the Git repo.

----------------

PACKAGE APPROVED

----------------

Still one issue: I wasn't aware of the new %license macro. Please add it to the spec files for building of f21 and Rawhide packages.

https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel-announce/2014-April/001381.html

Thanks for all the feedback.

I fixed the typos in %%changelog and the %%license macro

https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/csvdiff.spec

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: csvdiff
Short Description: Generate a diff between two CSV files on the command-line
Upstream URL: https://github.com/larsyencken/csvdiff
Owners: williamjmorenor
Branches: f21 master
InitialCC: williamjmorenor

Git done (by process-git-requests).

csvdiff-0.1.0-3.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/csvdiff-0.1.0-3.fc21

csvdiff-0.1.0-3.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository.

Mario can you help me with other package review? I have 4 packages in review but I don´t find a reviewer, are trivial packages review, can you help with some of this review request?

(In reply to William Moreno from comment #13)
> Mario can you help me with other package review? I have 4 packages in review
> but I don´t find a reviewer, are trivial packages review, can you help with
> some of this review request?

Yes, of course. But I expect you pick up my open review request in return:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1169498

csvdiff-0.1.0-3.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.