Hide Forgot
Spec URL: http://gathman.org/linux/SPECS/cvs2svn.spec SRPM URL: http://gathman.org/linux/f23/src/cvs2svn-2.4.0-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: cvs2svn is a Python script that converts a CVS repository to a Subversion repository. It is designed for one-time conversions, not for repeated synchronizations between CVS and Subversion. Add-on packages also support conversion to git and bazaar (and soon mercurial). Fedora Account System Username: sdgathman
Yes, I need a patch to get rid of the #!/usr/bin/env in several of the scripts. Just wanted to get the review request out there while I test the functionality with 2.4.0
This is a cleaned up version of the orphaned cvs2svn package.
cvs2git-2.3 and cvs2svn-2.3 are in Fedora22, but orphaned. I am using cvs2git-2.4 from this package on Fedora23 and EL7.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/cvs2svn See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names Not an issue, as it is unretiring a package. - License field is not accurate, files in svntest/ have Apache license - rpmlint issues -- shebang should be removed from python library files -- remove env from shebang in cvs2svn_lib/main.py and cvs2svn_lib/version.py files ===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 128 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/wsato/review/1322662-cvs2svn/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [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 215040 bytes in 11 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 %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 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. [-]: 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: [!]: 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. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in cvs2commons , cvs2git , cvs2bzr [x]: Package functions as described. [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. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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: cvs2svn-2.4.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm cvs2commons-2.4.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm cvs2git-2.4.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm cvs2bzr-2.4.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm cvs2svn-2.4.0-1.fc26.src.rpm cvs2commons.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/cvs2svn_lib/generate_blobs.py /usr/bin/env python -u cvs2commons.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/cvs2svn_lib/generate_blobs.py 644 /usr/bin/env python -u cvs2commons.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/cvs2svn_lib/main.py /usr/bin/env python cvs2commons.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/cvs2svn_lib/version.py /usr/bin/env python 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- cvs2commons.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/cvs2svn_lib/generate_blobs.py /usr/bin/env python -u cvs2commons.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/cvs2svn_lib/generate_blobs.py 644 /usr/bin/env python -u cvs2commons.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/cvs2svn_lib/main.py /usr/bin/env python cvs2commons.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/cvs2svn_lib/version.py /usr/bin/env python 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- cvs2commons (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/env /usr/bin/python cvs python(abi) rcs cvs2svn (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python2 cvs2commons subversion cvs2bzr (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python2 bzr bzr-fastimport cvs2commons cvs2git (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python2 cvs2commons git Provides -------- cvs2commons: cvs2commons python2.7dist(cvs2svn) python2dist(cvs2svn) cvs2svn: cvs2svn cvs2bzr: cvs2bzr cvs2git: cvs2git Source checksums ---------------- http://cvs2svn.tigris.org/files/documents/1462/49237/cvs2svn-2.4.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a6677fc3e7b4374020185c61c998209d691de0c1b01b53e59341057459f6f116 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a6677fc3e7b4374020185c61c998209d691de0c1b01b53e59341057459f6f116 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1322662 --mock-config 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 Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Thanks. Looks like it might be simple to fix the two nits.
The 128 "UNKNOWN" license files actually say: # This software is licensed as described in the file COPYING, which ... Does this need a patch? Seems clear enough for me. I updated License to include the ASL 2.0 license used in svntest.
Spec URL: http://gathman.org/linux/SPECS/cvs2svn.spec SRPM URL: http://gathman.org/linux/f24/src/cvs2svn-2.4.0-2.fc24.src.rpm cvs2svn, and the other subpackages depend on the cvs2commons subpackage. I added fully versioned dependencies, but renaming the package to cvs2commons doesn't seem right.
Added a %check section, but commented out because svntest fails - but seems to be due to out of date test code.
Hello, sorry for late follow-up. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines As the package is noarch, the Requires for cvs2commons should be without architecture, like: cvs2commons = %{version}-%{release} - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/cvs2svn See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names Not an issue, as it is unretiring a package. - rpmlint warning There is a warning about a commented macro in the added %check section. It is optional to fix, in my opinion. ===== 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", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 128 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/wsato/rereview/1322662-cvs2svn/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: 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. [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 215040 bytes in 11 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 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. [-]: 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in cvs2commons , cvs2git , cvs2bzr [x]: Package functions as described. [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. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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 1.3.4 starting (python version = 3.5.3)... 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 HW Info plugin Mock Version: 1.3.4 INFO: Mock Version: 1.3.4 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/wsato/rereview/1322662-cvs2svn/results/cvs2git-2.4.0-2.fc27.noarch.rpm /home/wsato/rereview/1322662-cvs2svn/results/cvs2svn-2.4.0-2.fc27.noarch.rpm /home/wsato/rereview/1322662-cvs2svn/results/cvs2bzr-2.4.0-2.fc27.noarch.rpm /home/wsato/rereview/1322662-cvs2svn/results/cvs2commons-2.4.0-2.fc27.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 27 --disableplugin=local --setopt=deltarpm=false install /home/wsato/rereview/1322662-cvs2svn/results/cvs2git-2.4.0-2.fc27.noarch.rpm /home/wsato/rereview/1322662-cvs2svn/results/cvs2svn-2.4.0-2.fc27.noarch.rpm /home/wsato/rereview/1322662-cvs2svn/results/cvs2bzr-2.4.0-2.fc27.noarch.rpm /home/wsato/rereview/1322662-cvs2svn/results/cvs2commons-2.4.0-2.fc27.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: cvs2svn-2.4.0-2.fc27.noarch.rpm cvs2commons-2.4.0-2.fc27.noarch.rpm cvs2git-2.4.0-2.fc27.noarch.rpm cvs2bzr-2.4.0-2.fc27.noarch.rpm cvs2svn-2.4.0-2.fc27.src.rpm cvs2svn.src:84: W: macro-in-comment %{__python2} 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- cvs2commons (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python2 cvs python(abi) rcs cvs2svn (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python2 cvs2commons(x86-64) subversion cvs2bzr (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python2 bzr bzr-fastimport cvs2commons(x86-64) cvs2git (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python2 cvs2commons(x86-64) git Provides -------- cvs2commons: cvs2commons python2.7dist(cvs2svn) python2dist(cvs2svn) cvs2svn: cvs2svn cvs2bzr: cvs2bzr cvs2git: cvs2git Source checksums ---------------- http://cvs2svn.tigris.org/files/documents/1462/49237/cvs2svn-2.4.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a6677fc3e7b4374020185c61c998209d691de0c1b01b53e59341057459f6f116 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a6677fc3e7b4374020185c61c998209d691de0c1b01b53e59341057459f6f116 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1322662 -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 Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
The main package and subpackages depend on cvs2commons. It wasn't apparent at that time how to arrange the subpackages. From doing acme-tiny, I think I can make cvs2svn depend on cvs2commons, and the other subpackages depend on cvs2svn.
Well, now I need to port it to python3.
The original repo is shutting down Jul 1 2020. Need to make a github repo to keep this going. I still this package locally - still have more CVS repos to convert. sf.net has a copy, I'll see what version they have.
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the submitter to proceed with the review. If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take this ticket. Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.
This requires taking over for upstream and porting to python3. It almost seems like a new review is required at that point.
Hi, resetting assignee as I probably won't have capacity for this in the near future.
I haven't started on porting to python3. Should we close review until that is done? Upstream is dead.
(In reply to Stuart D Gathman from comment #16) > I haven't started on porting to python3. Should we close review until that > is done? Upstream is dead. No, I think it's okay to keep this review open to let people know that you're still working on it.
(In reply to Didik Supriadi from comment #17) > (In reply to Stuart D Gathman from comment #16) > > I haven't started on porting to python3. Should we close review until that > > is done? Upstream is dead. > > No, I think it's okay to keep this review open to let people know that > you're still working on it. This is not completely correct. This review request is now in a state that should be used for requests that are looking for a reviewer. That is clearly not the case, since there is no ready-for-review specfile. For example, this request shows up on Reviewable tracker [1]. This is not big deal if you expect to have a reviewable specfile very soon. But if not, I suggest you close this request and then reopen or create a fresh one where you have something review. Note that packaging software without functional upstream is not recommended (though not strictly disallowed either). If you choose to do that, if effect you become the upstream. You will be solely responsible for keeping the software running and secure. If you really care about this tool, perhaps you should consider becoming the upstream maintainer instead of fixing it just for Fedora? [1]: https://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/reviewable.html
Closing until I get package ported to python3.