Spec URL: https://ca.enocloud.com:8080/v1/AUTH_09317026f6ce4da881c5e0b69bdcff93/fedora-pkg/python-APSscheduler.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/5302/9655302/python-APScheduler-2.1.2-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: python-APScheduler implements an in-process task scheduler with Cron-like capabilities Fedora Account System Username: tdecacqu
This spec package the version 2.1.2 instead of the more recent 3.0.3 because other package requires a version <3.0
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - SRPM URL is 404 - The spec is named APSscheduler.spec, but the name is APScheduler - Package does not install properly. I think the doc package Requires is wrong ===== 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". 31 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jtrowbri/fedora-reviews/1218410 /review-python-APScheduler/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [?]: 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. [!]: 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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [?]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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 %license. [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]: Dist tag is present. [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 does not use a name that already exists. [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. [?]: 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 python- APScheduler-doc [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. Note: It seems like there is a 3.0 version [x]: 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. [x]: %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]: 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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.2.9 starting (python version = 2.7.8)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled yum cache Start: cleaning yum metadata Finish: cleaning yum metadata INFO: enabled ccache Mock Version: 1.2.9 INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.9 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/jtrowbri/fedora-reviews/1218410/review-python-APScheduler/results/python-APScheduler-2.1.2-1.fc21.noarch.rpm /home/jtrowbri/fedora-reviews/1218410/review-python-APScheduler/results/python-APScheduler-doc-2.1.2-1.fc21.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # /usr/bin/yum --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-21-x86_64/root/ --releasever 21 install /home/jtrowbri/fedora-reviews/1218410/review-python-APScheduler/results/python-APScheduler-2.1.2-1.fc21.noarch.rpm /home/jtrowbri/fedora-reviews/1218410/review-python-APScheduler/results/python-APScheduler-doc-2.1.2-1.fc21.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-APScheduler-2.1.2-1.fc21.noarch.rpm python-APScheduler-doc-2.1.2-1.fc21.noarch.rpm python-APScheduler-2.1.2-1.fc21.src.rpm python-APScheduler-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python-APScheduler-doc/html/_static/jquery.js 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- python-APScheduler-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python-APScheduler(x86-64) python-APScheduler (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python-APScheduler-doc: bundled(jquery) python-APScheduler-doc python-APScheduler: python-APScheduler Source checksums ---------------- https://bitbucket.org/agronholm/apscheduler/get/v2.1.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 92a50e9fa88b8406a6d6f8c0bb79c79eeddf33b069635ab064664c7c1029f07a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 92a50e9fa88b8406a6d6f8c0bb79c79eeddf33b069635ab064664c7c1029f07a Generated by fedora-review 0.5.3 (bcf15e3) last change: 2015-05-04 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n python-APScheduler Buildroot used: fedora-21-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Hi John, thanks for the review! Can you explain me what "[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary." means ? The last version is not packaged because this 2.1.2 version is the one required by openstack-infra tools. Then for the installation error, I don't know what to do. python-statsd had the same error (could not install the -doc using the rpm file), but once in f21 repository, it can install the -doc just fine.
I think the bigger issues are these ones: - SRPM URL is 404 - The spec is named APSscheduler.spec, but the name is APScheduler (extra 's')
Oups, only the swift object was miss-named, here are the correct link then: Spec URL: https://ca.enocloud.com:8080/v1/AUTH_09317026f6ce4da881c5e0b69bdcff93/fedora-pkg/python-APScheduler.spec SRPM URL: https://ca.enocloud.com:8080/v1/AUTH_09317026f6ce4da881c5e0b69bdcff93/fedora-pkg/python-APScheduler-2.1.2-1.fc21.src.rpm
Clearing the block on needsponsor, since tristan was sponsored in the packaging group. John, are you ok with me taking over the review ?
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines DEBUG util.py:377: --> Finished Dependency Resolution DEBUG util.py:377: Error: Package: python-APScheduler-doc-2.1.2-1.fc22.noarch (/python-APScheduler-doc-2.1.2-1.fc22.noarch) DEBUG util.py:377: Requires: python-APScheduler(x86-64) = 2.1.2-1.fc22 -> I guess the problem is that you use the %{?_isa} macro for the requirement of the doc subpackage. As python-apscheduler is noarch you don't need it. - I think you should remove the tailing .fc21 in your changelog entry. It should fix the rpmlint warning. - You gave the explanation about why the latest version is not packaged. So that's fine. - Not really an issue but you should use %{__python2}, %{python2_sitelib} macro according to the Packaging Python guidelines as you only support python2. ===== 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". 31 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/1218410-python- APScheduler/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: 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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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 %license. [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]: Dist tag is present. [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 does not use a name that already exists. [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. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [?]: 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python- APScheduler-doc [!]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: 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. [x]: %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]: 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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.2.12 starting (python version = 3.4.2)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled yum cache Start: cleaning yum metadata Finish: cleaning yum metadata INFO: enabled ccache Mock Version: 1.2.12 INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.12 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/fedora/1218410-python-APScheduler/results/python-APScheduler-2.1.2-1.fc22.noarch.rpm /home/fedora/1218410-python-APScheduler/results/python-APScheduler-doc-2.1.2-1.fc22.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # /usr/bin/yum-deprecated --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-22-x86_64/root/ --releasever 22 install /home/fedora/1218410-python-APScheduler/results/python-APScheduler-2.1.2-1.fc22.noarch.rpm /home/fedora/1218410-python-APScheduler/results/python-APScheduler-doc-2.1.2-1.fc22.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-APScheduler-2.1.2-1.fc22.noarch.rpm python-APScheduler-doc-2.1.2-1.fc22.noarch.rpm python-APScheduler-2.1.2-1.fc22.src.rpm python-APScheduler.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.1.2-1.fc21 ['2.1.2-1.fc22', '2.1.2-1'] 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- python-APScheduler-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python-APScheduler(x86-64) python-APScheduler (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python-APScheduler-doc: bundled(jquery) python-APScheduler-doc python-APScheduler: python-APScheduler Source checksums ---------------- https://bitbucket.org/agronholm/apscheduler/get/v2.1.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 92a50e9fa88b8406a6d6f8c0bb79c79eeddf33b069635ab064664c7c1029f07a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 92a50e9fa88b8406a6d6f8c0bb79c79eeddf33b069635ab064664c7c1029f07a Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1218410 Buildroot used: fedora-22-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Hi Tristan, I suggest you should fix the -doc sub package dependency and the changelog entry. Once done I think the package is OK. Fabien
Hi Tristan, I've tested a build on Koji (https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10837030) and packages produced on it does not have the same issue like below: rpm -qp --provides ../RPMS/noarch/python-APScheduler-2.1.2-1.fc22.noarch.rpm python-APScheduler = 2.1.2-1.fc22 rpm -qp --requires ../RPMS/noarch/python-APScheduler-doc-2.1.2-1.fc22.noarch.rpm | grep python python-APScheduler(x86-64) = 2.1.2-1.fc22 So for the packaging part, I'm ok with it. Nevertheless it seems there is like a random issue that appears during unit tests like here: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10837176 So maybe it is nice to have a look and/or check with upstream about that, or even deactivate that specific test. I won't block on that and let you decide. Fabien
The spec is available here: 198.154.188.55:8080/v1/AUTH_1844ec7baf8542bca32422fe7e50f8a9/specs/python-APSscheduler.spec
I've requested a new package pkgdb. Expect a new spec file here in the next day or so.
Please note that recent guidelines recommend lowercase names: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#General_Naming. python-APSscheduler is a pain to type or remember.
Good to know!
Spec URL: https://pabelanger.fedorapeople.org/python-apscheduler/2015-12-19-0001/python-apscheduler.spec SRPM URL: https://pabelanger.fedorapeople.org/python-apscheduler/2015-12-19-0001/python-apscheduler-3.0.5-1.fc24.src.rpm I've updated the spec to support python3. Hopefully caught all the existing issues with the first rounds of reviews.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/python-APScheduler