Spec URL: https://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/packages/pew.spec SRPM URL: https://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/packages/pew-0.1.24-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: Python Env Wrapper is a set of commands to manage multiple virtual environments. Pew can create, delete and copy your environments, using a single command to switch to them wherever you are, while keeping them in a single (configurable) location. Virtualenvs make it easier to work on more than one project at a time without introducing conflicts in their dependencies. Pew is completely shell-agnostic and thus works on bash, zsh, fish, powershell, etc. Fedora Account System Username: bochecha
I looked at your review request and I have some comments about it. I noted there is no license file, you may tell to upstream to add it. The second thing, the compilation fails when I try to build the SRPM in mock. Here is the error: No matching package to install: 'python3-pythonz-bd >= 1.11.2' Not all dependencies satisfied Error: Some packages could not be found. According to upstream requirements, pythonz-bd for Python3 has still the same name: pythonz-bd. https://github.com/berdario/pew/blob/master/requirements.txt
> The second thing, the compilation fails when I try to build the SRPM in mock. I know, I added pythonz-bd to Fedora this afternoon. :) It should be in Rawhide and F26 already (or tomorrow), and it should be in F25 testing very soon.
Ok, I tried this and it works. =)
My apologies for not coming back to this sooner. Especially since you were trying to review this as part of your sponsorship process Vincent. :( Here is a new package. Spec URL: https://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/packages/pew.spec SRPM URL: https://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/packages/pew-0.1.26-1.fc25.src.rpm This is a new upstream version, and I added the README.md file (which wasn't included in the 0.1.24 tarball) as %doc. This file contains a copy of the MIT license, so hopefully that should satisfy the legal requirements.
Don't worry Mathieu, so here is an informal review for pew package. REVIEW: + OK - NA X ISSUE + Package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + Spec file matches base package name. + Spec has consistant macro usage. + Meets Packaging Guidelines. + License + License field in spec matches + License file included in package + Spec in American English + Spec is legible. + Sources match upstream sha256sum: $ sha256sum -b ~/pew-0.1.26.tar.gz ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/pew-0.1.26.tar.gz 0e52051393777ebf93b6ed883a049b615e0555978a578b682043f69c7ea8a6bb */opt/builder//pew-0.1.26.tar.gz 0e52051393777ebf93b6ed883a049b615e0555978a578b682043f69c7ea8a6bb */opt/builder//rpmbuild/SOURCES/pew-0.1.26.tar.gz - Package needs ExcludeArch + BuildRequires correct - Spec handles locales/find_lang - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. + Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. + Package is code or permissible content. - Doc subpackage needed/used. + Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig - .so files in -devel subpackage. - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - .la files are removed. - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file + Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. + Package has no duplicate files in %files. + Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. + Package owns all the directories it creates. X Rpmlint output: 3 errors. $ rpmlint SPECS/pew.spec /var/lib/mock/fedora-26-x86_64/result/pew-0.1.26-1.fc26.src.rpm /var/lib/mock/fedora-26-x86_64/result/pew-0.1.26-1.fc26.noarch.rpm SPECS/pew.spec:12: W: unversioned-explicit-provides python-%{name} SPECS/pew.spec:13: W: unversioned-explicit-provides python3-%{name} pew.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Virtualenvs -> Virtual pew.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zsh -> sh, ssh, ash pew.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US powershell -> power shell, power-shell, powers hell pew.src:12: W: unversioned-explicit-provides python-%{name} pew.src:13: W: unversioned-explicit-provides python3-%{name} pew.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Virtualenvs -> Virtual pew.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zsh -> sh, ssh, ash pew.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US powershell -> power shell, power-shell, powers hell pew.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/pew/pew.py /usr/bin/env python pew.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/pew/pew.py 644 /usr/bin/env python pew.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/pew/shell_config/complete_deploy /usr/bin/env python pew.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pew 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 11 warnings. + final provides and requires are sane. SHOULD Items: + Should build in mock. + Should build on all supported archs - Should function as described. - Should have sane scriptlets. - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. + Should have dist tag + Should package latest version - check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews) Issues : - I think, I remember that it's forbidden to use this shebang in Fedora package : /usr/bin/env python For me, you may just resolve rpmlint issues otherwise all the rest is ok.
Thanks for the detailed review Vincent. Concerning those shebangs, the first one should get removed https://github.com/berdario/pew/pull/141 And I have a feeling the second one also will: https://github.com/berdario/pew/issues/142
Hey, sorry for the long silence! Here's a new package, which should fix the two rpmlint issues. Spec URL: https://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/packages/pew.spec SRPM URL: https://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/packages/pew-1.1.0-1.fc26.src.rpm
seems like bug 1525570 is a review request for the same package?
Closing this one as per discussion in bug 1525570. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1525570 ***