Spec URL: http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/dhanvi/pintail-asciidoc/python-pintail-asciidoc.git/tree/pintail-asciidoc.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dhanvi/pintail-asciidoc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00341230-python-pintail-asciidoc/python-pintail-asciidoc-0.0.20160527git97c5e94-1.fc25.src.rpm Description: Use AsciiDoc pages in Pintail sites Fedora Account System Username: dhanvi
I am not sure if the above links will be up all the time so I am updating them with my fedorapeople links Spec URL : https://dhanvi.fedorapeople.org/packages/pintail-asciidoc/pintail-asciidoc.spec SRPM URL : https://dhanvi.fedorapeople.org/packages/pintail-asciidoc/python-pintail-asciidoc-0.0.20160527git97c5e94-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: Use AsciiDoc pages in Pintail sites Fedora Account System Username: dhanvi
Some remarks before the review: - Please add the COPYING file with the %license macro. - From what I understand from the python guidelines, (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python) the RPM must be named python3-pintail-asciidoc (the SRPM can still be named python-pintail-asciidoc) and use the %python_provide macro to be future ready. - The tests are failing in mock with "ImportError: No module named 'pintail.site'" I guess you are missing a BR.
Updated the spec and srpm https://dhanvi.fedorapeople.org/packages/pintail-asciidoc/pintail-asciidoc.spec https://dhanvi.fedorapeople.org/packages/pintail-asciidoc/python3-pintail-asciidoc-0.3-1.20161022gitb391be8.fc23.src.rpm
- The name of the SPEC must be python-pintail-asciidoc.spec - The name of the SRPM must be like ptyhon-pintail-asciidoc-0.3-1.20161022gitb391be8.fc24.src.rpm To achieve this, you need to change the Name to python-pintail-asciidoc and add a subpackage as describe in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python - I still get ImportError: No module named 'pintail.site' in mock. If I install locally on f24 I can import it. Could this be a problem in the rawhide version of pintail?
(In reply to Julien Enselme from comment #4) > - The name of the SPEC must be python-pintail-asciidoc.spec Updated > - The name of the SRPM must be like > ptyhon-pintail-asciidoc-0.3-1.20161022gitb391be8.fc24.src.rpm To achieve > this, you need to change the Name to python-pintail-asciidoc and add a > subpackage as describe in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python Done > - I still get ImportError: No module named 'pintail.site' in mock. If I > install locally on f24 I can import it. Could this be a problem in the > rawhide version of pintail? My guess is that pintail is not added to rawhide version of fedora, more details in this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1364194 Even when I build it in copr it failed in fedora rawhide only! https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/dhanvi/pintail-asciidoc/monitor/ SPEC: https://dhanvi.fedorapeople.org/packages/pintail-asciidoc/python-pintail-asciidoc.spec SRPM: https://dhanvi.fedorapeople.org/packages/pintail-asciidoc/python-pintail-asciidoc-0.3-1.20161022gitb391be8.fc24.src.rpm
SRPM Updated : https://dhanvi.fedorapeople.org/packages/pintail-asciidoc/python-pintail-asciidoc-0.3-1.20161105gitb391be8.fc24.src.rpm
- Usage of %{sum} is not needed. You can define the summary and then use %{summary} - Concerning the tests: it seems that this package doesn't have any. So I think you can just skip the %check section. I tested the import of rawhide and it works so we can exclude this. - Missing dependency: rubygem-asciidoctor-mallard - Remove macro from changelog (the changelog must not depends on the value of a macro) - I think you should exclude the /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/pintail directory and only own /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/pintail/asciidoc. You can do this by changing your %files section into: %files python3-%{srcname} %exclude %{python3_sitelib}/pintail/ %{python3_sitelib}/pintail/asciidoc/ %{python3_sitelib}/pintail_asciidoc* - Files must belong to package (%files -> %files python3-%{srcname}) 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 ===== 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: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/review- python-pintail-asciidoc/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.5/site- packages/pintail(pintail) [X]: 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]: 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]: 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: [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: [X]: 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). [?]: 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: [!]: 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 1.2.21 starting (python version = 3.5.2)... 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 Mock Version: 1.2.21 INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.21 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /tmp/review-python-pintail-asciidoc/results/python-pintail-asciidoc-0.3-1.20161105gitb391be8.fc26.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 26 --disableplugin=local --setopt=deltarpm=false install /tmp/review-python-pintail-asciidoc/results/python-pintail-asciidoc-0.3-1.20161105gitb391be8.fc26.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-pintail-asciidoc-0.3-1.20161105gitb391be8.fc26.noarch.rpm python-pintail-asciidoc-0.3-1.20161105gitb391be8.fc26.src.rpm python-pintail-asciidoc.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.3.20161105gitb391be8-1 ['0.3-1.20161105gitb391be8.fc26', '0.3-1.20161105gitb391be8'] python-pintail-asciidoc.noarch: W: no-documentation python-pintail-asciidoc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/python-pintail-asciidoc/COPYING python-pintail-asciidoc.src:50: W: macro-in-%changelog %{shortcommit0} python-pintail-asciidoc.src:26: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 26, tab: line 6) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. Requires -------- python-pintail-asciidoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): pintail python(abi) rubygem-asciidoctor-mallard Provides -------- python-pintail-asciidoc: python-pintail-asciidoc python3.5dist(pintail-asciidoc) python3dist(pintail-asciidoc) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/projectmallard/pintail-asciidoc/archive/b391be837bf01fa2bf510ec56cb6442500971ea1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0c64d1b58c1d64578421b4c66df95c1df48628aeee80798e28013f8f2ee5ab13 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0c64d1b58c1d64578421b4c66df95c1df48628aeee80798e28013f8f2ee5ab13 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -n python-pintail-asciidoc 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
- Changed %{sum} to %{summary} - Removed the %check - I am packaging the dependency (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343977) - Removed macro from change log - Updated the files as you have mentioned https://dhanvi.fedorapeople.org/packages/pintail-asciidoc/
I see that the python_provide macro is commented in the package. Is there a reason for that? Every thing else looks good. I will approve this package once the dependency is in rawhide.
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 is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket reviewer failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we reset the status and the assignee of this ticket.
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.