Spec URL: https://jstanek.fedorapeople.org/udiskie/udiskie.spec SRPM URL: https://jstanek.fedorapeople.org/udiskie/udiskie-1.2.0-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: udiskie is a front-end for UDisks written in python. Its main purpose is automatically mounting removable media, such as CDs or flash drives. Fedora Account System Username: jstanek
When installing man pages, note that they should be installed uncompressed as the build system will compress them as needed. The compression method may change. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Manpages rpmbuild will handle that for you magically. Your spec file has some explicit Requires. Please ensure that all of those referenced packages are available and really needed for all the target distributions (e.g. currently Fedora rawhide, 22, 21, 20, EPEL7, EPEL6, EPEL5, …) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires
Updated versions: - Spec URL: https://jstanek.fedorapeople.org/udiskie/udiskie.spec - SRPM URL: https://jstanek.fedorapeople.org/udiskie/udiskie-1.2.0-1.fc23.src.rpm Changes: - Man pages compressing was left to rpmbuild - Revised the Requires. Unfortunately, the rpmbuild does not automatically pick dependencies for python modules, so they need to be specified explicitly. Also made sure that the package builds on Fedora Rawhide, 22, 21 and 20 and EPEL 7. EPEL 6 and older lacks udisks2, so building a wrapper for it there makes no sense. - Added polkit rules, extracted from README file, as separate source and %config file.
Thanks for the fixes. As I am on vacation currently, could we postpone the official review till to not earlier than the end of next week? Maybe someone else have time to do it earlier if it is urgent, though. Please remove this command from %install: rm -rf %{buildroot} It's not needed since EPEL7 and Fedora20+. As you wrote there is not going to happen an EPEL6 build, this rm command is obsolete.
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #3) > Thanks for the fixes. As I am on vacation currently, could we postpone the > official review till to not earlier than the end of next week? Maybe someone > else have time to do it earlier if it is urgent, though. It is not urgent, so I'm fine with postponing the official review. > Please remove this command from %install: rm -rf %{buildroot} > It's not needed since EPEL7 and Fedora20+. As you wrote there is not going > to happen an EPEL6 build, this rm command is obsolete. Removed.
Why no python3 for Fedora 20? Well, it will be EOL in some weeks, so why care about that at all? Maybe remove the conditional and build always for Python3.
The python3 modules are built for all Fedoras. The only things that switches between Python2/3 are the executable files. According to guidelines [1], they should use Python2 up to and including Fedora 21, and Python 3 from Fedora 22 onward -- which should be exactly what the conditional does. (I'm assuming you are talking about the `%if 0%fedora > 21` conditionals.) [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Avoiding_collisions_between_the_python_2_and_python_3_stacks
Doing this review for F20 does not make any sense. F20 is in EOL freeze since a week ago. Besides that, F20 build fails with: + /usr/bin/python2 setup.py test WARNING:root:Missing runtime dependencies: No module named gi.repository.DBus WARNING:root:Missing runtime dependencies: No module named gi.repository.GLib WARNING:root:Missing runtime dependencies: No module named gi.repository.Gtk WARNING:root:Missing runtime dependencies: No module named gi.repository.Notify running test Searching for docopt Reading https://pypi.python.org/simple/docopt/ Download error on https://pypi.python.org/simple/docopt/: [Errno -2] Name or service not known -- Some packages may not be found! Scanning index of all packages (this may take a while) Reading https://pypi.python.org/simple/ Couldn't find index page for 'docopt' (maybe misspelled?) Download error on https://pypi.python.org/simple/: [Errno -2] Name or service not known -- Some packages may not be found! No local packages or download links found for docopt error: Could not find suitable distribution for Requirement.parse('docopt')
FTBFS, because rawhide build fails as well.
I cannot reproduce the test failures - both on my machine's mock and in copr [1,2]. The only warning I'm getting is about missing Notify typelib - which is fine, as it is only optional. The log you posted is complaining about missing gobject bindings for python (packages pygobject3 and python3-gobject, both are present in (Build)Requires), and then tries to download other necessary python modules (doctopt and PyYAML, both again present in respective (Build)Requires). So I'm bit confused about what went wrong... As for Fedora 20, the specfile does not have any F20 specific parts, so not doing the review for it should not be a problem. [1] https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/jstanek/udiskie/ [2] https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/jstanek/udiskie/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/udiskie-1.2.0-1.fc23/build.log.gz
Sorry for the delay here. I am going to take a closer look inside, hopefully in the next days.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues generally: * You can use -print and -delete as the options for find to log and remove the disallowed files: - find %{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib} -name '*.exe' | xargs rm -f + find %{buildroot} -name '*.exe' -print -delete With that, you need also only one line to find in both py2 and py3 folders. You should do that removal early in %prep, but I do not know if install fails. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#No_inclusion_of_pre-built_binaries_or_libraries ===== 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/polkit-1/rules.d, /etc/polkit-1 => This is handled in PolicyKit. So you must add Requires: polkit https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#The_directory_is_also_owned_by_a_package_implementing_required_functionality_of_your_package [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/icons/hicolor (hicolor-icon-theme, fedora-logos), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/actions(hicolor-icon-theme), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable(hicolor-icon-theme, fedora-logos) => Please remove them from %files, hicolor-icon-theme takes care of that. => Add Requires: hicolor-icon-theme https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#The_directory_is_also_owned_by_a_package_implementing_required_functionality_of_your_package [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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. => see above. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [!]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in udiskie => Please fix. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache [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 61440 bytes in 6 files. => List manpage without %doc, it is a separate file and has nothing to do with documentation folder. [!]: 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 %license. [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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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: [ ]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) => I do not understand this. The hint is wrong. [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 [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel ===== 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). => see above. [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python- udiskie , python3-udiskie [!]: Package functions as described. => several open issues that currently prevent fully functionality. [x]: 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. [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. => Use 'nstall -p' or 'cp -p' instead. [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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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: udiskie-1.2.0-1.fc23.noarch.rpm python-udiskie-1.2.0-1.fc23.noarch.rpm python3-udiskie-1.2.0-1.fc23.noarch.rpm udiskie-1.2.0-1.fc23.src.rpm udiskie.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unmounting -> mounting, miscounting, unstinting python-udiskie.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) automounter -> auto mounter, auto-mounter, mounter python3-udiskie.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) udisks -> disks, u disks, Saudis python3-udiskie.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) automounting -> auto mounting, auto-mounting, automating udiskie.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unmounting -> mounting, miscounting, unstinting 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.2.9 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 dnf cache Start: cleaning dnf metadata Finish: cleaning dnf metadata INFO: enabled ccache Mock Version: 1.2.9 INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.9 Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/sbin/mock", line 831, in <module> main() File "/usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/mockbuild/trace_decorator.py", line 84, in trace result = func(*args, **kw) File "/usr/sbin/mock", line 653, in main run_command(options, args, config_opts, commands, buildroot, state) File "/usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/mockbuild/trace_decorator.py", line 84, in trace result = func(*args, **kw) File "/usr/sbin/mock", line 708, in run_command commands.init() File "/usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/mockbuild/trace_decorator.py", line 84, in trace result = func(*args, **kw) File "/usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/mockbuild/backend.py", line 123, in init self.buildroot.initialize(**kwargs) File "/usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/mockbuild/trace_decorator.py", line 84, in trace result = func(*args, **kw) File "/usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/mockbuild/buildroot.py", line 84, in initialize self._init(prebuild=prebuild, do_log=do_log) File "/usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/mockbuild/trace_decorator.py", line 84, in trace result = func(*args, **kw) File "/usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/mockbuild/buildroot.py", line 128, in _init self._setup_devices() File "/usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/mockbuild/trace_decorator.py", line 84, in trace result = func(*args, **kw) File "/usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/mockbuild/buildroot.py", line 442, in _setup_devices os.symlink("/proc/self/mounts", self.make_chroot_path('etc', 'mtab')) FileExistsError: [Errno 17] File exists: '/proc/self/mounts' -> '/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/etc/mtab' Requires -------- python-udiskie (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): PyYAML gtk3 pygobject3 python(abi) python-docopt udisks2 python3-udiskie (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gtk3 python(abi) python3-PyYAML python3-docopt python3-gobject udisks2 udiskie (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/python3 config(udiskie) python3-udiskie Provides -------- python-udiskie: python-udiskie python3-udiskie: python3-udiskie udiskie: config(udiskie) udiskie Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/u/udiskie/udiskie-1.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 075b967360d69b6e9a06a5b93b36b2a9181367b269d305710b96c38b245ac340 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 075b967360d69b6e9a06a5b93b36b2a9181367b269d305710b96c38b245ac340 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1224265 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, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
I have uploaded updated SPEC and SRPM, links are still the same. > * You can use -print and -delete as the options for find > to log and remove the disallowed files: > - find %{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib} -name '*.exe' | xargs rm -f > + find %{buildroot} -name '*.exe' -print -delete > With that, you need also only one line to find in both py2 and py3 folders. > You should do that removal early in %prep, but I do not know if install fails. > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#No_inclusion_of_pre-built_binaries_or_libraries I changed the find commands to use the -delete switch. However, they cannot be moved into %prep section, as their purpose is to remove any *.exe files generated during build, if any. > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/polkit-1/rules.d, /etc/polkit-1 > => This is handled in PolicyKit. So you must add Requires: polkit Require for polkit added. > [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > => Please remove them from %files, hicolor-icon-theme takes care of that. > => Add Requires: hicolor-icon-theme Require for hicolor-icon-theme added, and the %files line was changed to only match the concrete files (no directories). > [!]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package > contains icons. > Note: icons in udiskie The icon cache scriptlet was already there, just beyond the %check section. To be sure, I moved it before that section. > => List manpage without %doc, it is a separate file and has nothing to do with documentation folder. %doc before manpages removed. > [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python-udiskie , python3-udiskie This package works "backwards" in this case - the main package requires one of the subpackages and not the other way around. To these requires, I added the %{version}-%{release} macros (no %{?_isa}, as they are all noarch). > [!]: Package functions as described. > => several open issues that currently prevent fully functionality. I'm not sure which issues you are refering to. If you mean the github ones, they are mainly RFE or authors's own plans for the future. > [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed > files. > => Use 'install -p' or 'cp -p' instead. Went through the used commands and add the -p switch when applicable. I hope I did not miss any issue, if so, please point me to it.
APPROVED Sorry for the long delay.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: udiskie Short Description: Removable disk auto-mounter Upstream URL: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/udiskie Owners: jstanek Branches: f21 f22 epel7 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: udiskie New Branches: f23 Owners: jstanek New package request has been issued before f23 branching, but granted after the branching. As a result, this package now lacks f23 branch, which it should have.
Approved package imported and successfully built for all branches.