Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/dnf-plugins-extras.spec SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/dnf-plugins-extras-0.0.1-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: Extras Plugins for DNF. This package enhance DNF with snapper plugin. Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain
Basically I believe at least the file ownership, the require and the changelog need to be fixed. But of course it would be nice if the "SHOULD items" could be fixed too: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: 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/dnf-plugins, /usr/lib/python3.4 [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages, /usr/lib/python3.4, /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/dnf-plugins, /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/dnf-plugins [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. Note: Missing email address. [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]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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. Note: I believe that python3-dnf-plugins-extras-snapper should require python3-dbus. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: 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. [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. [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: python3-dnf-plugins-extras-common owns %{python3_sitelib}/dnf-plugins/__pycache__/ that is also owned by python3-dnf-plugins-core. [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: [-]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: 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). Note: I believe that python3-dnf-plugins-extras-snapper should require python3-dbus. [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: Package functions as described. Note: I was not able to create a working setup so far. I'll test the package in the next round. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [!]: 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. Note: no tests included [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. Note: invalid-url Source0: dnf-plugins-extras-478969e.tar.xz [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: dnf-plugins-extras-0.0.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm python3-dnf-plugins-extras-0.0.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm dnf-plugins-extras-common-0.0.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm python3-dnf-plugins-extras-common-0.0.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm dnf-plugins-extras-snapper-0.0.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm python3-dnf-plugins-extras-snapper-0.0.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm dnf-plugins-extras-0.0.1-1.fc22.src.rpm dnf-plugins-extras.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-dnf-plugins-extras.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-dnf-plugins-extras-common.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/dnfpluginsextras/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-34.pyc expected 3260 (3.4), found 3310 (unknown) python3-dnf-plugins-extras-common.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/dnfpluginsextras/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-34.pyo expected 3260 (3.4), found 3310 (unknown) dnf-plugins-extras-snapper.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-dnf-plugins-extras-snapper.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-dnf-plugins-extras-snapper.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/dnf-plugins/__pycache__/snapper.cpython-34.pyo expected 3260 (3.4), found 3310 (unknown) python3-dnf-plugins-extras-snapper.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/dnf-plugins/__pycache__/snapper.cpython-34.pyc expected 3260 (3.4), found 3310 (unknown) dnf-plugins-extras.src: W: invalid-url Source0: dnf-plugins-extras-478969e.tar.xz 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint dnf-plugins-extras-snapper dnf-plugins-extras-comm on python3-dnf-plugins-extras-snapper python3-dnf-plugins-extras-common python3- dnf-plugins-extras dnf-plugins-extras dnf-plugins-extras-snapper.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-dnf-plugins-extras-snapper.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-dnf-plugins-extras.noarch: W: no-documentation dnf-plugins-extras.noarch: W: no-documentation 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- dnf-plugins-extras-snapper (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dbus-python dnf-plugins-extras-common python(abi) snapper dnf-plugins-extras-common (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dnf python(abi) python3-dnf-plugins-extras-snapper (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dbus-python python(abi) python3-dnf-plugins-extras-common snapper python3-dnf-plugins-extras-common (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-dnf python3-dnf-plugins-extras (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python3-dnf-plugins-extras-snapper dnf-plugins-extras (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dnf-plugins-extras-snapper Provides -------- dnf-plugins-extras-snapper: dnf-plugins-extras-snapper dnf-plugins-extras-common: dnf-plugins-extras-common python3-dnf-plugins-extras-snapper: python3-dnf-plugins-extras-snapper python3-dnf-plugins-extras-common: python3-dnf-plugins-extras-common python3-dnf-plugins-extras: python3-dnf-plugins-extras dnf-plugins-extras: dnf-plugins-extras Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1174893 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 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
New SPEC: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/dnf-plugins-extras-2.spec New SRPM: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/dnf-plugins-extras-0.0.1-2.fc22.src.rpm > [!]: 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/dnf-plugins, /usr/lib/python3.4 > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages, > /usr/lib/python3.4, /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/dnf-plugins, > /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/dnf-plugins Looks like false positive. Filled bug (RHBZ #1175327). > [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. > Note: Missing email address. fixed > [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. > Note: I believe that python3-dnf-plugins-extras-snapper should require python3-dbus. fixed > [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > Note: python3-dnf-plugins-extras-common owns %{python3_sitelib}/dnf-plugins/__pycache__/ that is also owned by python3-dnf-plugins-core. dnf-plugins-core also using pycache dir, so dnf should own it. Sent Pull requests for that. https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf/pull/187 https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf-plugins-core/pull/52 > [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. > Note: no tests included No tests implemented right now. I'm planning to write it. > python3-dnf-plugins-extras-common.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/dnfpluginsextras/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-34.pyc expected 3260 (3.4), found 3310 (unknown) > python3-dnf-plugins-extras-common.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/dnfpluginsextras/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-34.pyo expected 3260 (3.4), found 3310 (unknown) > python3-dnf-plugins-extras-snapper.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/dnf-plugins/__pycache__/snapper.cpython-34.pyo expected 3260 (3.4), found 3310 (unknown) > python3-dnf-plugins-extras-snapper.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/dnf-plugins/__pycache__/snapper.cpython-34.pyc expected 3260 (3.4), found 3310 (unknown) looks like python byte-compiler bug. This files auto-generated
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. Note: dnf-plugins-extras-2.spec should be dnf-plugins-extras.spec See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name ===== 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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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. [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. [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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: File names are valid UTF-8. [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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: 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). [-]: 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. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [!]: 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. Note: no tests included [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. [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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: dnf-plugins-extras-0.0.1-2.fc22.noarch.rpm python3-dnf-plugins-extras-0.0.1-2.fc22.noarch.rpm dnf-plugins-extras-common-0.0.1-2.fc22.noarch.rpm python3-dnf-plugins-extras-common-0.0.1-2.fc22.noarch.rpm dnf-plugins-extras-snapper-0.0.1-2.fc22.noarch.rpm python3-dnf-plugins-extras-snapper-0.0.1-2.fc22.noarch.rpm dnf-plugins-extras-0.0.1-2.fc22.src.rpm dnf-plugins-extras.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-dnf-plugins-extras.noarch: W: no-documentation dnf-plugins-extras-snapper.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-dnf-plugins-extras-snapper.noarch: W: no-documentation dnf-plugins-extras.src: W: invalid-url Source0: dnf-plugins-extras-e9f5ec1.tar.xz 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint dnf-plugins-extras-snapper dnf-plugins-extras-common pyth on3-dnf-plugins-extras-snapper python3-dnf-plugins-extras-common python3-dnf-plu gins-extras dnf-plugins-extras dnf-plugins-extras-snapper.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-dnf-plugins-extras-snapper.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-dnf-plugins-extras.noarch: W: no-documentation dnf-plugins-extras.noarch: W: no-documentation 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- dnf-plugins-extras-snapper (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dbus-python dnf-plugins-extras-common python(abi) snapper dnf-plugins-extras-common (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dnf python(abi) python3-dnf-plugins-extras-snapper (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-dbus python3-dnf-plugins-extras-common snapper python3-dnf-plugins-extras-common (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-dnf python3-dnf-plugins-extras (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python3-dnf-plugins-extras-snapper dnf-plugins-extras (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dnf-plugins-extras-snapper Provides -------- dnf-plugins-extras-snapper: dnf-plugins-extras-snapper dnf-plugins-extras-common: dnf-plugins-extras-common python3-dnf-plugins-extras-snapper: python3-dnf-plugins-extras-snapper python3-dnf-plugins-extras-common: python3-dnf-plugins-extras-common python3-dnf-plugins-extras: python3-dnf-plugins-extras dnf-plugins-extras: dnf-plugins-extras Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1174893 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 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
Thanks. I did this name to report bug against fedora-review
Package Name: dnf-plugins-extras Short Description: Extras Plugins for DNF Owners: ignatenkobrain Branches: f20 f21 InitialCC: packaging-team
No SCM request found.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: dnf-plugins-extras Short Description: Extras Plugins for DNF Upstream URL: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf-plugins-extras Owners: ignatenkobrain Branches: f20 f21 InitialCC: packaging-team
Git done (by process-git-requests).
dnf-plugins-extras-0.0.1-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dnf-plugins-extras-0.0.1-2.fc21
dnf-plugins-extras-0.0.1-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository.
I will suggest don't even generate metapackage. There is no use of generating empty packages. If you want to generate individual plugins then let the user install it separately. Group tag is unnecessary and is optional so good to remove it. The directory should have been chosen as dnf-plugins-extras similar like dnf-plugins.
(In reply to Parag from comment #11) > I will suggest don't even generate metapackage. There is no use of > generating empty packages. If you want to generate individual plugins then > let the user install it separately. > > Group tag is unnecessary and is optional so good to remove it. > > The directory should have been chosen as dnf-plugins-extras similar like > dnf-plugins. Users can install dnf-plugins-extras. Then he will get pile of plugins. Users can install dnf-plugins-extras-pluginname. Then he will get only this plugin. Directory for what? We will use dnf-plugins Dir and its OK.
(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #12) > (In reply to Parag from comment #11) > > I will suggest don't even generate metapackage. There is no use of > > generating empty packages. If you want to generate individual plugins then > > let the user install it separately. > > > > Group tag is unnecessary and is optional so good to remove it. > > > > The directory should have been chosen as dnf-plugins-extras similar like > > dnf-plugins. > > Users can install dnf-plugins-extras. Then he will get pile of plugins. > Users can install dnf-plugins-extras-pluginname. Then he will get only this > plugin. > I thought if we have separate packages then user will install them individually and not sure in future if they will find all the plugins in -extras to be installed using dnf-plugins-extras metapackage. Anyways it looks fine. > Directory for what? We will use dnf-plugins Dir and its OK. Ah! I only had a look at spec file and got confused by this line %{python_sitelib}/dnfpluginsextras/ Thanks.
dnf-plugins-extras-0.0.1-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.