Bug 1294904 - Review Request: python-rpm-macros - The unversioned Python RPM macros
Summary: Review Request: python-rpm-macros - The unversioned Python RPM macros
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Antonio T. (sagitter)
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2015-12-30 21:43 UTC by Orion Poplawski
Modified: 2018-04-11 15:54 UTC (History)
9 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-04-06 20:39:42 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
anto.trande: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Orion Poplawski 2015-12-30 21:43:15 UTC
Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python-macros.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python-macros-3-1.el7.src.rpm
Description:
This package contains the unversioned Python RPM macros, that most
implementations should rely on.

You should not need to install this package manually as the various
python?-devel packages require it. So install a python-devel package instead.

Fedora Account System Username: orion

Comment 1 Orion Poplawski 2016-01-04 22:50:03 UTC
Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python-rpm-macros.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python-rpm-macros-3-2.el7.src.rpm

Combined package, adds:

python-srpm-macros - RPM macros for building Python source packages
python2-macros - RPM macros for building Python 2 packages
python3-macros - RPM macros for building Python 3 packages

python-srpm-macros would be required by redhat-rpm-config.  python2-devel would require python-macros and python2-macros.  python3-devel would requires python-macros and python3-macros.

Comment 2 Antonio T. (sagitter) 2016-01-05 11:50:18 UTC
Is this package only for EPEL7 ?

Comment 3 Orion Poplawski 2016-01-05 15:57:44 UTC
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #2)
> Is this package only for EPEL7 ?

No.

Comment 4 Antonio T. (sagitter) 2016-01-05 17:30:26 UTC
(In reply to Orion Poplawski from comment #1)
> Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python-rpm-macros.spec
> SRPM URL:
> http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python-rpm-macros-3-2.el7.src.rpm
> 
> Combined package, adds:
> 
> python-srpm-macros - RPM macros for building Python source packages
> python2-macros - RPM macros for building Python 2 packages
> python3-macros - RPM macros for building Python 3 packages
> 
> python-srpm-macros would be required by redhat-rpm-config.  python2-devel
> would require python-macros and python2-macros.  python3-devel would
> requires python-macros and python3-macros.

On Fedora 23, python2-macros provided by this package conflicts with current python2-devel(2.7.10-8).

# dnf install python2-macros-3-2.fc23.noarch.rpm python-rpm-macros-3-2.fc23.noarch.rpm python-srpm-macros-3-2.fc23.noarch.rpm
Last metadata expiration check performed 0:02:55 ago on Tue Jan  5 18:22:36 2016.
Error: package python-devel-2.7.10-8.fc23.x86_64 requires python-macros = 2.7.10-8.fc23, but none of the providers can be installed
(try to add '--allowerasing' to command line to replace conflicting packages)

Am I missing something?

Also, is MIT license acquired by other packages?

Comment 5 Thomas Spura 2016-01-05 21:03:16 UTC
The current python package requires an exact python-macros version. This should have been fixed by Orion here, there is just no build done yet with this change:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/python.git/commit/?id=8d55496acc1e8fec83be6f01e09f1dc59dba7e16

The new python-rpm-macros package looks awesome!

Comment 6 Orion Poplawski 2016-01-05 21:15:14 UTC
Yeah, this will need coordination with the main python packages assuming this is the desired way to go.

Not sure what you mean about the MIT license.  That's the default license for spec files, so I just carried that over for the macros.

Comment 7 Antonio T. (sagitter) 2016-01-05 21:20:43 UTC
(In reply to Orion Poplawski from comment #6)
> Not sure what you mean about the MIT license.  That's the default license
> for spec files, so I just carried that over for the macros.

I meant, does not need to provide any license file?

Comment 8 Orion Poplawski 2016-01-07 02:52:25 UTC
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #7)
> (In reply to Orion Poplawski from comment #6)
> > Not sure what you mean about the MIT license.  That's the default license
> > for spec files, so I just carried that over for the macros.
> 
> I meant, does not need to provide any license file?

I don't think so, no.

Comment 9 Orion Poplawski 2016-01-08 17:30:54 UTC
Ping?

Comment 10 Antonio T. (sagitter) 2016-01-08 18:13:00 UTC
- I think it's better to include %prep/%build sections.

$ rpmlint -I no-%prep-section
no-%prep-section:
The spec file does not contain a %prep section.  Even if some packages don't
directly need it, section markers may be overridden in rpm's configuration to
provide additional "under the hood" functionality.  Add the section, even if
empty.


Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel


===== 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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d,
     /usr/lib/rpm
[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]: 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]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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?)
[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

===== 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python-
     srpm-macros , python2-macros , python3-macros
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[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]: 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.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python-rpm-macros-3-2.fc24.noarch.rpm
          python-srpm-macros-3-2.fc24.noarch.rpm
          python2-macros-3-2.fc24.noarch.rpm
          python3-macros-3-2.fc24.noarch.rpm
          python-rpm-macros-3-2.fc24.src.rpm
python-rpm-macros.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unversioned -> diversion
python-rpm-macros.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unversioned -> diversion
python-rpm-macros.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US devel -> delve, devil, revel
python-rpm-macros.noarch: W: no-url-tag
python-rpm-macros.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
python-rpm-macros.noarch: W: no-documentation
python-srpm-macros.noarch: W: no-url-tag
python-srpm-macros.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
python-srpm-macros.noarch: W: no-documentation
python2-macros.noarch: W: no-url-tag
python2-macros.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
python2-macros.noarch: W: no-documentation
python3-macros.noarch: W: no-url-tag
python3-macros.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
python3-macros.noarch: W: no-documentation
python-rpm-macros.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unversioned -> diversion
python-rpm-macros.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unversioned -> diversion
python-rpm-macros.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US devel -> delve, devil, revel
python-rpm-macros.src: W: no-url-tag
python-rpm-macros.src: W: no-%prep-section
python-rpm-macros.src: W: no-%build-section
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 21 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
python2-macros.noarch: W: no-url-tag
python2-macros.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
python2-macros.noarch: W: no-documentation
python-srpm-macros.noarch: W: no-url-tag
python-srpm-macros.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
python-srpm-macros.noarch: W: no-documentation
python-rpm-macros.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unversioned -> diversion
python-rpm-macros.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unversioned -> diversion
python-rpm-macros.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US devel -> delve, devil, revel
python-rpm-macros.noarch: W: no-url-tag
python-rpm-macros.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
python-rpm-macros.noarch: W: no-documentation
python3-macros.noarch: W: no-url-tag
python3-macros.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
python3-macros.noarch: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 15 warnings.



Requires
--------
python2-macros (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

python-srpm-macros (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

python-rpm-macros (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

python3-macros (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
python2-macros:
    python2-macros

python-srpm-macros:
    python-srpm-macros

python-rpm-macros:
    python-macros
    python-rpm-macros

python3-macros:
    python3-macros



Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1294904
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

Comment 11 Orion Poplawski 2016-01-08 18:25:06 UTC
Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python-rpm-macros.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python-rpm-macros-3-3.el7.src.rpm

%changelog
* Thu Jan 8 2016 Orion Poplawski <orion.com> 3-3
- Add empty %%prep and %%build

Comment 12 Antonio T. (sagitter) 2016-01-08 18:27:10 UTC
Package approved.

Comment 13 Gwyn Ciesla 2016-01-12 23:29:55 UTC
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/python-rpm-macros


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.