Spec URL: https://github.com/irushchyshyn/rpm_package/blob/master/python-pynlpl.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/irushchyshyn/rpm_package/blob/master/python-pynlpl-1.0.9-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: PyNLPl, pronounced as ‘pineapple’, is a Python library for Natural Language Processing. It contains various modules useful for common, and less common, NLP tasks. PyNLPl can be used for basic tasks such as the extraction of n-grams and frequency lists, and to build simple language model. There are also more complex data types and algorithms. Moreover, there are parsers for file formats common in NLP (e.g. FoLiA/Giza/Moses/ARPA/Timbl/CQL). There are also clients to interface with various NLP specific servers. PyNLPl most notably features a very extensive library for working with FoLiA XML (Format for Linguistic Annotation). Fedora Account System Username: ishcherb Koji URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16193827 PyPI URL: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/PyNLPl/ GitHub URL: https://github.com/proycon/pynlpl This is my first package, and I am seeking a sponsor.
Please always include link to the files themselves. On GitHub, that's the "Raw" button. Some automated tools will attempt to download the HTML page instead.
Thank you for pointing this out. Links to the files: Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/irushchyshyn/rpm_package/master/python-pynlpl.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/irushchyshyn/rpm_package/raw/master/python-pynlpl-1.0.9-1.fc24.src.rpm
Hi Iryna, there are my comments: * [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. Please be more specific in (Build)Requires and put python2-* instead of just python- wherever it is possible. Add python-numpy, it is listed in requires.txt in upstream. * Current Source0 creates folder named "v1.0.9.tar.gz", it should be rather "pynlpl-1.0.9.tar.gz" (add #/%{pkg_name}-%{version}.tar.gz to the current URL) ;) * [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. Please add license to python-pynlpl-doc package. * You can use macro %{summary}, which will contain content of the Summary tag (it's generated automatically, you do not have to define it). Just keep the first Summary tag as it is and in python2/3- subpackages you can use `Summary: %{summary}`. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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. [!]: 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. [!]: 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. [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 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: [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: [-]: 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. [?]: 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: python2-pynlpl-1.0.9-1.fc26.noarch.rpm python3-pynlpl-1.0.9-1.fc26.noarch.rpm python-pynlpl-doc-1.0.9-1.fc26.noarch.rpm python-pynlpl-1.0.9-1.fc26.src.rpm python2-pynlpl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parsers -> parser, parses, parers python3-pynlpl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parsers -> parser, parses, parers python3-pynlpl.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pynlpl-computepmi-3.5 python3-pynlpl.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pynlpl-computepmi-3 python3-pynlpl.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pynlpl-sampler-3 python3-pynlpl.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pynlpl-sampler-3.5 python3-pynlpl.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pynlpl-makefreqlist-3.5 python3-pynlpl.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pynlpl-makefreqlist-3 python-pynlpl.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parsers -> parser, parses, parers 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python2-pynlpl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parsers -> parser, parses, parers python3-pynlpl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parsers -> parser, parses, parers python3-pynlpl.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pynlpl-computepmi-3.5 python3-pynlpl.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pynlpl-makefreqlist-3 python3-pynlpl.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pynlpl-sampler-3.5 python3-pynlpl.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pynlpl-computepmi-3 python3-pynlpl.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pynlpl-sampler-3 python3-pynlpl.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pynlpl-makefreqlist-3.5 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Requires -------- python2-pynlpl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash python(abi) python-httplib2 python-lxml python-setuptools python-pynlpl-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python3-pynlpl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3-httplib2 python3-lxml python3-setuptools Provides -------- python2-pynlpl: python-pynlpl python2-pynlpl python2.7dist(pynlpl) python2dist(pynlpl) python-pynlpl-doc: python-pynlpl-doc python3-pynlpl: python3-pynlpl python3.5dist(pynlpl) python3dist(pynlpl) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/proycon/pynlpl/archive/v1.0.9.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9df7cc8679c085747047be129f9da978aa2a432f60602480a0ffdd7e35d26921 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9df7cc8679c085747047be129f9da978aa2a432f60602480a0ffdd7e35d26921 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1388396 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
You can use %package doc Instead of %package -n python-%{pkg_name}-doc --------------- The docs generation tracebacks a lot, have a look at that and investigate please. --------------- The docs would be better generated with python 3 to show our love of Python 3, however, if that would be too complicated, just keep it as is. --------------- The links in /usr/bin should normally follow this pastern: less specific -> more specific I.e. the other way around than: /usr/bin/pynlpl-computepmi-3 /usr/bin/pynlpl-computepmi-3.5 -> /usr/bin/pynlpl-computepmi-3 /usr/bin/pynlpl-makefreqlist-3 /usr/bin/pynlpl-makefreqlist-3.5 -> /usr/bin/pynlpl-makefreqlist-3 /usr/bin/pynlpl-sampler-3 /usr/bin/pynlpl-sampler-3.5 -> /usr/bin/pynlpl-sampler-3 Also, in this case I would say just omit the Python version at all, as the version thing is there just to distinguish between the Python 2 and Python 3 executables and here the executables are only in Python 3 subpackage. --------------- I was quite curious, how it is possible that after %py3_install there is stuff in /usr/bin to move around and after %py2_install, there is none. So I've looked at the sources and it's explicitly only allowed on Python 3, so it works as expected. I recommend adding a comment after %py2_install, something like: # the executables are only installed on python 3 (by statement in setup.py)
Hey Dominika and Miro, thank you for the review and very useful comments. @Dominika * [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. Added a missing dependency, and specified the python version where possible. * [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. Added license to python-pynlpl-doc package. * Current Source0 creates folder named "v1.0.9.tar.gz", it should be rather "pynlpl-1.0.9.tar.gz" Changed. * Used %{summary} macro. All above changes to the scpec file are available in the following commit: https://github.com/irushchyshyn/rpm_package/commit/4fbbf0e65e74aa5f787092bc25c855fb0b0f299a @Miro * Removed not needed package renaming. * Use Python 3 for docs generation. * Removed Python version from Python 3 executables. The changes are available in the following commit: https://github.com/irushchyshyn/rpm_package/commit/2431c712af57d0b55a7049b2833712c7fc183ff5 --------------- The docs generation tracebacks a lot, have a look at that and investigate please. Created an issue for upstream, to track the warnings and tracebacks: https://github.com/proycon/pynlpl/issues/23 Also created PRs to fix the tracebacks which were merged, so with the next release it will be fixed. New koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16259888
I suggested one cosmetic change on GitHub inline comment. Other that that, the package seems good to me, although I did not try to use it / run it. The final word would have Dominkina, as she raised the review flag, not me. Excellent work with upstream. I'd gladly sponsor you, if you also do some reviews. There are plenty Python related open reviews here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Python#Review_Python_packages - please indicate in the review that you are not yet sponsored and thus cannot approve the package yet, but that you can do it once sponsored. Don't forget to add me to CC in that bug. Don't hesitate to contact me or others on #fedora-python IRC channel with questions.
Great Iryna! :) PACKAGE APPROVED.
@iryna You will not be able to create the package in pkgdb before you get sponsored.
@Miro Thanks for pointing this out. I have done a review for the following packages, and am planning to do more. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1383416 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372836 @Miro, @Dominika Thank you for approving my package, and looking forward to getting sponsored :)
Sponsored. Good luck.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-pynlpl
python-pynlpl-1.0.9-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-c75647fa6a
python-pynlpl-1.0.9-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-c75647fa6a
python-pynlpl-1.0.9-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.