Spec URL: https://mopsfelder.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/python-uniseg.spec SRPM URL: https://mopsfelder.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-uniseg-0.7.1-1.20150312git6b1560cedb19.fc23.src.rpm Description: Uniseg is a Python module that provides functions to wrap words based on Unicode Character Database (UCD) version 6.2.0. Fedora Account System Username: mopsfelder Koji task: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9210020 I need a sponsor. Thanks!
[not a full review - just some drive-by comments] * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag > Version: 0.7.1 The included README says 0.7.0, so in case you've packaged a pre-release snapshot, it should either follow the pre-release versioning guidelines when keeping "Version: 0.7.1" or switch to "Version: 0.7.0" and follow the post-release guidelines: * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Version_and_Release > %files > %{python2_sitelib}/*egg-info > %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg > %defattr(0755,root,root,-) > %{_bindir}/uniseg-dbpath > %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg/wraptest.py > %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg/samples/uniwrap.py > %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg/samples/unibreak.py > %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg/samples/wxwrapdemo.py > %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg/sentencebreaktest.py > %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg/graphemeclustertest.py > %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg/wordbreaktest.py This %files section looks much as if it is the result of trial-and-error build attempts: > %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg > ... > %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg/wraptest.py If %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg is a directory, the line %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg includes the directory and everything (anything!) in it. That is, all the following lines lines in the %files section, which specify individual .py files, are redundant. You also get warnings by rpmbuild: "warning: File listed twice": https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/20/9210020/build.log Many packagers add a trailing slash to directory entries in %files sections to make them more explicit, more readable, e.g. %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg/ does the same thing as %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg but makes it more clear to the reader that it is supposed to be a directory. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories The tool "rpmls" and "rpm" (rpm -qlvp …) are your friends when examining package contentes / files lists. > %if 0%{?with_python3} > %files -n python3-uniseg > %{python3_sitelib}/*egg-info > %{python3_sitelib}/uniseg > %defattr(0755,root,root,-) > %{_bindir}/uniseg-dbpath > %{python3_sitelib}/uniseg/wraptest.py > %{python3_sitelib}/uniseg/samples/uniwrap.py > %{python3_sitelib}/uniseg/samples/unibreak.py > %{python3_sitelib}/uniseg/samples/wxwrapdemo.py > %{python3_sitelib}/uniseg/sentencebreaktest.py > %{python3_sitelib}/uniseg/graphemeclustertest.py > %{python3_sitelib}/uniseg/wordbreaktest.py > %endif # with_python3 Same here. > # strip python3 from shebang line > sed -i'' -e 's,^.*#!/usr/bin/python3.*$,#!/usr/bin/python,g' %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/uniseg-dbpath The file is included in both packages, so in package python3-uniseg /usr/bin/uniseg-dbpath would execute via /usr/bin/python which may be Python 2. > BuildArch: noarch > BuildRequires: sqlite > Requires: sqlite Does it really need "sqlite" (no specific arch) at run-time? $ grep sqlite * -R Binary file uniseg/__pycache__/db.cpython-34.pyo matches Binary file uniseg/__pycache__/db.cpython-34.pyc matches Binary file uniseg/ucd.sqlite3 matches uniseg/db.py:import sqlite3 uniseg/db.py: dbname = 'ucd.sqlite3' uniseg/db.py: _conn = sqlite3.connect(_dbpath) Typically, a comment should explain such explicit Requires: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires [...] Consider pointing the fedora-review tool at review tickets like this: fedora-review -b 1201338
Hello, Michael. Thanks a lot for your time on reviewing this package. I did update the package and would really appreciate if you could take a look at it again. (In reply to Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) from comment #1) > [not a full review - just some drive-by comments] > > * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text > * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions > * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag > I fixed file permissions in %files section. I also removed Buildroot directive. As to %license, I asked upstream maintainer to add a LICENSE file with a copy of the MIT license. > > > Version: 0.7.1 > > The included README says 0.7.0, so in case you've packaged a pre-release > snapshot, it should either follow the pre-release versioning guidelines when > keeping "Version: 0.7.1" or switch to "Version: 0.7.0" and follow the > post-release guidelines: > > * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Version_and_Release > This time, I packaged a released version, i.e. 0.7.0. > > > %files > > %{python2_sitelib}/*egg-info > > %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg > > %defattr(0755,root,root,-) > > %{_bindir}/uniseg-dbpath > > %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg/wraptest.py > > %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg/samples/uniwrap.py > > %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg/samples/unibreak.py > > %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg/samples/wxwrapdemo.py > > %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg/sentencebreaktest.py > > %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg/graphemeclustertest.py > > %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg/wordbreaktest.py > > This %files section looks much as if it is the result of trial-and-error > build attempts: > > > %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg > > ... > > %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg/wraptest.py > > If %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg is a directory, the line > > %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg > > includes the directory and everything (anything!) in it. That is, all the > following lines lines in the %files section, which specify individual .py > files, are redundant. You also get warnings by rpmbuild: "warning: File > listed twice": > https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/20/9210020/build.log > > Many packagers add a trailing slash to directory entries in %files sections > to make them more explicit, more readable, e.g. > > %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg/ > > does the same thing as > > %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg > > but makes it more clear to the reader that it is supposed to be a directory. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories > > The tool "rpmls" and "rpm" (rpm -qlvp …) are your friends when examining > package contentes / files lists. > I listed %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg/ in %files for readability. > > > %if 0%{?with_python3} > > %files -n python3-uniseg > > %{python3_sitelib}/*egg-info > > %{python3_sitelib}/uniseg > > %defattr(0755,root,root,-) > > %{_bindir}/uniseg-dbpath > > %{python3_sitelib}/uniseg/wraptest.py > > %{python3_sitelib}/uniseg/samples/uniwrap.py > > %{python3_sitelib}/uniseg/samples/unibreak.py > > %{python3_sitelib}/uniseg/samples/wxwrapdemo.py > > %{python3_sitelib}/uniseg/sentencebreaktest.py > > %{python3_sitelib}/uniseg/graphemeclustertest.py > > %{python3_sitelib}/uniseg/wordbreaktest.py > > %endif # with_python3 > > Same here. > Fixed that too. > > > # strip python3 from shebang line > > sed -i'' -e 's,^.*#!/usr/bin/python3.*$,#!/usr/bin/python,g' %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/uniseg-dbpath > > The file is included in both packages, so in package python3-uniseg > /usr/bin/uniseg-dbpath would execute via /usr/bin/python which may be Python > 2. > Since setup.py is called twice with different python interpreters (one with python2 and another with python3), the last installed /usr/bin/uniseg-dbpath file ends up having /usr/bin/python3 in the shebang line. > > > BuildArch: noarch > > BuildRequires: sqlite > > > Requires: sqlite > > Does it really need "sqlite" (no specific arch) at run-time? > > $ grep sqlite * -R > Binary file uniseg/__pycache__/db.cpython-34.pyo matches > Binary file uniseg/__pycache__/db.cpython-34.pyc matches > Binary file uniseg/ucd.sqlite3 matches > uniseg/db.py:import sqlite3 > uniseg/db.py: dbname = 'ucd.sqlite3' > uniseg/db.py: _conn = sqlite3.connect(_dbpath) > > Typically, a comment should explain such explicit Requires: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires > I removed sqlite from Requires. > [...] > > Consider pointing the fedora-review tool at review tickets like this: > fedora-review -b 1201338 Spec URL: https://mopsfelder.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/python-uniseg.spec SRPM URL: https://mopsfelder.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-uniseg-0.7.0-1.fc23.src.rpm Koji task: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9582619
Do you want to continue this review?
Hello, William. I do. I'm focused on other topics at the moment but I think I can provide an updated src.rpm next month. Until there, do you prefer to close this bug and I re-open it further?
OK, I will take this review, for me there is no need to close this bug.
Any update here?
mopsfelder's scratch build of python-uniseg-0.7.1-0.el6.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12503363
(In reply to Upstream Release Monitoring from comment #7) > mopsfelder's scratch build of python-uniseg-0.7.1-0.el6.src.rpm for rawhide > completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12503363 (This level of automation scares me. Thanks, Fedora guys!) William, comment 7 has the build I submitted with the latest 0.7.1 version of python-uniseg. I'd appreciate if you can review it. Thanks!
Package Review ============== 1. There is a docs directory than you can build with sphinx and include in a doc subpackage. 2. You can get the License text from upstream to include it in the spec: https://bitbucket.org/emptypage/uniseg-python/src/d6436d00e293cb1b4876def8501959da5b6716bd/LICENSE?fileviewer=file-view-default 3. Include the README.txt with %doc also include uniseg/docs/uniseg.ja.html 4. There is a docs directory than you can build with sphinx and include in a doc subpackage. ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [Pass]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [Na]: 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 %license. [Pass]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [NA]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [Pass]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [Pass]: Changelog in prescribed format. [Pass]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [Pass]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [NA]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [NA]: Development files must be in a -devel package [NA]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [Pass]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [Pass]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [Pass]: Package does not generate any conflict. [Pass]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [Pass]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [Pass]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [Pass]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [Pass]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [Pass]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [Pass]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [Pass]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [Pass]: Package installs properly. [Pass]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. [Pass]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [Pass]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [Pass]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [Pass]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [Pass]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [Pass]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [Pass]: Dist tag is present. [Pass]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [Pass]: Permissions on files are set properly. [Pass]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [Pass]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [Pass]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [Pass]: Package is not relocatable. [Pass]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [Pass]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [Pass]: File names are valid UTF-8. [Pass]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. [Pass]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: 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: [ ]: 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). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-uniseg [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define unicode_version 6.2.0, %define srcdir emptypage-uniseg-python-8fed7c16392f [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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== 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-uniseg-0.7.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm python3-uniseg-0.7.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm python-uniseg-0.7.0-1.fc24.src.rpm python-uniseg.noarch: W: no-documentation python-uniseg.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/uniseg/samples/uniwrap.py 644 /usr/bin/env python-uniseg.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/uniseg/graphemeclustertest.py 644 /usr/bin/env python-uniseg.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/uniseg/samples/wxwrapdemo.py 644 /usr/bin/env python-uniseg.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/uniseg/samples/unibreak.py 644 /usr/bin/env python-uniseg.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/uniseg/sentencebreaktest.py 644 /usr/bin/env python-uniseg.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/uniseg/wordbreaktest.py 644 /usr/bin/env python-uniseg.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/uniseg/wraptest.py 644 /usr/bin/env python-uniseg.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary uniseg-dbpath python3-uniseg.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-uniseg.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/uniseg/wraptest.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3-uniseg.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/uniseg/samples/wxwrapdemo.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3-uniseg.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/uniseg/graphemeclustertest.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3-uniseg.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/uniseg/wordbreaktest.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3-uniseg.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/uniseg/samples/unibreak.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3-uniseg.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/uniseg/samples/uniwrap.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3-uniseg.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/uniseg/sentencebreaktest.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3-uniseg.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary uniseg-dbpath 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 14 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python-uniseg.noarch: W: no-documentation python-uniseg.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/uniseg/samples/wxwrapdemo.py 644 /usr/bin/env python-uniseg.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/uniseg/graphemeclustertest.py 644 /usr/bin/env python-uniseg.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/uniseg/samples/unibreak.py 644 /usr/bin/env python-uniseg.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/uniseg/sentencebreaktest.py 644 /usr/bin/env python-uniseg.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/uniseg/wraptest.py 644 /usr/bin/env python-uniseg.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/uniseg/wordbreaktest.py 644 /usr/bin/env python-uniseg.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/uniseg/samples/uniwrap.py 644 /usr/bin/env python-uniseg.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary uniseg-dbpath python3-uniseg.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-uniseg.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/uniseg/wordbreaktest.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3-uniseg.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/uniseg/sentencebreaktest.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3-uniseg.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/uniseg/wraptest.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3-uniseg.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/uniseg/samples/uniwrap.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3-uniseg.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/uniseg/samples/unibreak.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3-uniseg.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/uniseg/samples/wxwrapdemo.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3-uniseg.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/uniseg/graphemeclustertest.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3-uniseg.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary uniseg-dbpath 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 14 errors, 4 warnings. Requires -------- python-uniseg (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python python(abi) python3-uniseg (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python python(abi) Provides -------- python-uniseg: python-uniseg python3-uniseg: python3-uniseg Source checksums ---------------- https://bitbucket.org/emptypage/uniseg-python/get/rel-0.7.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2cd74d67690298438607c6064e78690c7b60152536149dd4886995970051ab1f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2cd74d67690298438607c6064e78690c7b60152536149dd4886995970051ab1f
Any update?
Hi, William. This turned into a low priority for me. What if we close this bug for now and when I have an updated package containing fixes for issues you pointed out I reopen it? Does that work? Thanks a lot for your review!
I can wait for the updated spec.
Well then based on comment#11 lets close this. Murilo, when you want to continue here please just reopen and provide updated SPEC and SRPM links.