Spec URL: https://github.com/Traceur759/python-libsass/blob/master/python-libsass.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/Traceur759/python-libsass/blob/master/python-libsass-0.13.2-1.fc26.src.rpm Description: This is an RPM package for libsass python bindings. Fedora Account System Username: dormouse
Marcel needs a sponsor, so here I come :)
1) First of all: Always post links that can be downloaded and viewed as plaintext / SRPM. There are automated tools here that expect that. That would be: Spec URL: https://github.com/Traceur759/python-libsass/raw/master/python-libsass.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/Traceur759/python-libsass/raw/master/python-libsass-0.13.2-1.fc26.src.rpm 2) You don't need to define a sum macro, just fill in the Summary: line and then use %{summary} everywhere else. 3) Is suggest to drop the %{libname} macro and hardcode libsass-python in the URL. It is convenient when one can just copy paste it form the spec. Also, you can use %{url} in Source0: URL: https://github.com/dahlia/libsass-python Source0: %{url}/releases/download/%{version}/%{srcname}-%{version}.tar.gz 6) This bundles libsass C/C++ library. That one is packaged in Fedora: https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/libsass You should make every effort to use that package instead of the bundled code in the tarball. This might involve patching. If you absolutely fail (e.g. because the bundled version of libsass is very diffferent from original (probably not, they use a git submodule), than you need to indicate bundling by providing bundled(libsass). See more about bundling at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Bundling_and_Duplication_of_system_libraries 5) I see you use ExclusiveArch tag. Please, add a comment that explains why is thet necessary. Or maybe it's not necessary at all? Even the libsass C/C++ package builds for all arches in Fedora. 6) Putting each BuildRequires on a separate line makes them more maintainable. (But current way works as well and is OK.) 7) sed "1d" -i %{buildroot}/%{python2_sitearch}/sassc.py I guess this is for shebang? If so: - is it possible to get rid of it once in prep? - can the command be chanaged to only delete the shebang if it's actually there? 8) # Note that there is no %%files section for the unversioned python module if we are building for several python runtimes This is such common situation, that it might not require this comment any more. 9) README.rst is no license and should not be used with %license tag. Upstream has a nice LICENSE file in git, maybe propose (pull request) a change to their MANIFEST.in file to include LICENSE in the tarballs. In the meantime, this package can live easily without the file. Note: Somebody did this already: https://github.com/dahlia/libsass-python/commit/a00117129e0e8a863195c378337fc416ee69b179 10) PKG-INFO is not documentation and does not belong to %doc 11) I see hardcoded 2.7, 3.6 and 36 in the %files section. While this might eb Ok for 2.7, because theat will be the last version of 2, this is not Ok for 3.6. Use the following macros instead: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros %{python3_version_nodots} for 36 %{python3_version} for 3.6 %{python2_version} for 2.7 12) %{python3_sitearch}/__pycache__/ You have this in the files section. It will make your package own the entire directory, which is not desired, python3-libs owns that directory. Either use: %{python3_sitearch}/__pycache__/* to own everything inside, or be more explicit: %{python3_sitearch}/__pycache__/sass.* %{python3_sitearch}/__pycache__/sassc.* ... 13) The bindir section in %files looks like it doesn't belong anywhere, where in fact it belongs to the python3-package. I suggest moving it more top in the files list. (But that is not a strong opinion). Feel free to ping me on #fedora-python for more info.
14) why does it BuildRequire six, but not require? Is it just needed for tests?
15) the tests don't run: + /usr/bin/python2 setup.py test running test running egg_info writing requirements to libsass.egg-info/requires.txt writing libsass.egg-info/PKG-INFO writing top-level names to libsass.egg-info/top_level.txt writing dependency_links to libsass.egg-info/dependency_links.txt writing entry points to libsass.egg-info/entry_points.txt reading manifest file 'libsass.egg-info/SOURCES.txt' reading manifest template 'MANIFEST.in' warning: no files found matching '*.c' under directory 'libsass' warning: no files found matching '*.cpp' under directory 'libsass' warning: no files found matching '*.h' under directory 'libsass' warning: no files found matching '*.hpp' under directory 'libsass' warning: no files found matching 'libsass/Makefile' writing manifest file 'libsass.egg-info/SOURCES.txt' running build_ext copying build/lib.linux-x86_64-2.7/_sass.so -> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ran 0 tests in 0.000s OK + /usr/bin/python3 setup.py test running test running egg_info writing libsass.egg-info/PKG-INFO writing dependency_links to libsass.egg-info/dependency_links.txt writing entry points to libsass.egg-info/entry_points.txt writing requirements to libsass.egg-info/requires.txt writing top-level names to libsass.egg-info/top_level.txt reading manifest file 'libsass.egg-info/SOURCES.txt' reading manifest template 'MANIFEST.in' warning: no files found matching '*.c' under directory 'libsass' warning: no files found matching '*.cpp' under directory 'libsass' warning: no files found matching '*.h' under directory 'libsass' warning: no files found matching '*.hpp' under directory 'libsass' warning: no files found matching 'libsass/Makefile' writing manifest file 'libsass.egg-info/SOURCES.txt' running build_ext copying build/lib.linux-x86_64-3.6/_sass.cpython-36m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so -> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ran 0 tests in 0.000s OK
See https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libsass/pull-request/1 This will allow you to read the libsass version in two possible ways: 1) parse /usr/include/sass/version.h 2) write and compile a small program: #include <stdio.h> #include <sass/context.h> int main() { puts(libsass_version()); return 0; } gcc -Wall version.c -lsass -o version && ./version
There are changes pushed to GitHub. Basically, I went step by step and fixed what was wrong. Everything should be alright now, even the tests run properly now. Now, the "Source Code" tarball from https://github.com/dahlia/libsass-python/releases is used to make a package.
I've commented on github commits some further tips. Could you please take those into consideration as well? https://github.com/Traceur759/python-libsass/commit/b86f62dd15e75ed6e05ad000dc839f08e0f63120 https://github.com/Traceur759/python-libsass/commit/08121af5c74736db7f8e9dcd0231c6f1f93fc2dc
I've juts found out that there is a sassc (Ruby) package in Fedora that has /usr/bin/sassc - this package cannot conflict with it.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 1536000 bytes in 94 files. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation - Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/python3.6/site- packages/sassutils, /usr/lib64/python3.6/site- packages/libsass-0.13.2-py3.6.egg-info, /usr/lib64/python2.7/site- packages/libsass-0.13.2-py2.7.egg-info, /usr/lib64/python2.7/site- packages/sassutils - Package generates a conflict with the ruby version of sassc (will be solved with next upstream release) - Please add link to upstream discussion as a comment near the patches - Please don't mix spaces and tabs (I recommend sticking with spaces) python-libsass.src:12: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 12) ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. (They are not. Verified.) [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/python2.7/site- packages/libsass-0.13.2-py2.7.egg-info, /usr/lib64/python3.6/site- packages/sassutils, /usr/lib64/python3.6/site- packages/libsass-0.13.2-py3.6.egg-info, /usr/lib64/python2.7/site- packages/sassutils [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/python3.6/site- packages/sassutils, /usr/lib64/python3.6/site- packages/libsass-0.13.2-py3.6.egg-info, /usr/lib64/python2.7/site- packages/libsass-0.13.2-py2.7.egg-info, /usr/lib64/python2.7/site- packages/sassutils [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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. [!]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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 [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. Not applicable here, just docs, it runs in one thread anyway [-]: 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. [?]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1556480 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: python2-libsass-0.13.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm python3-libsass-0.13.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm python-libsass-debuginfo-0.13.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm python-libsass-0.13.2-1.fc28.src.rpm python2-libsass.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/python2-libsass/html/.buildinfo python3-libsass.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/python3-libsass/html/.buildinfo python-libsass.src:12: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 12) 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: python-libsass-debuginfo-0.13.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python-libsass-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/dahlia/libsass-python <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> python3-libsass.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/dahlia/libsass-python <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> python3-libsass.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/python3-libsass/html/.buildinfo python2-libsass.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/dahlia/libsass-python <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> python2-libsass.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/python2-libsass/html/.buildinfo 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Invalid URLs is false possitive (no connection from mock) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/churchyard/rpmbuild/FedoraReview/1491281-python-libsass/srpm/python-libsass.spec 2017-10-05 16:58:37.752799878 +0200 +++ /home/churchyard/rpmbuild/FedoraReview/1491281-python-libsass/srpm-unpacked/python-libsass.spec 2017-09-26 18:32:50.000000000 +0200 @@ -74,5 +74,5 @@ %files -n python2-%{srcname} %license LICENSE -%doc README.rst docs/_build/html/ +%doc README.rst docs/_build/html %{python2_sitearch}/_sass.so %{python2_sitearch}/libsass-0.13.2-py%{python2_version}.egg-info/* ^ Please fix this as well, but not a big deal. Requires -------- python-libsass-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python3-libsass (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython3.6m.so.1.0()(64bit) libsass.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) python(abi) python3-six rtld(GNU_HASH) python2-libsass (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython2.7.so.1.0()(64bit) libsass.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) python(abi) python2-six rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- python-libsass-debuginfo: python-libsass-debuginfo python-libsass-debuginfo(x86-64) python3-libsass: python3-libsass python3-libsass(x86-64) python3.6dist(libsass) python3dist(libsass) python2-libsass: python-libsass python-libsass(x86-64) python2-libsass python2-libsass(x86-64) python2.7dist(libsass) python2dist(libsass) Unversioned so-files -------------------- (This is fine on Python) python2-libsass: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/_sass.so python3-libsass: /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/_sass.cpython-36m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/dahlia/libsass-python/archive/0.13.2.tar.gz#/libsass-0.13.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0d919cef7e4033f900daee2ec7dfc54b30351bc2d64a41c9eacd4028b4d25878 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0d919cef7e4033f900daee2ec7dfc54b30351bc2d64a41c9eacd4028b4d25878 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (7737a2a) last change: 2015-11-26 Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 1491281 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
About the conflicts: Currently it doe snot conflict, but the executable is excluded, which should be fixed anyway and it will, upstream is working on it.
Any updates Marcel?
I managed to push a patch to the upstream for easier packaging. Not much since then, I'm currently working on some matters around cpython, but I'd like to finish this package during January.
A new version is up.
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Traceur759/python-libsass/master/python-libsass.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/Traceur759/python-libsass/blob/master/python-libsass-0.13.4-1.fc26.src.rpm?raw=true
Posting URLs Fedora-Review can understand. Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Traceur759/python-libsass/master/python-libsass.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/Traceur759/python-libsass/raw/master/python-libsass-0.13.4-1.fc26.src.rpm"
I've got a build failure: + pushd docs ~/build/BUILD/libsass-python-0.13.4/docs ~/build/BUILD/libsass-python-0.13.4 ++ python3 -c 'import sysconfig; print(sysconfig.get_platform())' + PLATFORM=linux-x86_64 + export PYTHONPATH=../build/lib.linux-x86_64-3.6 + PYTHONPATH=../build/lib.linux-x86_64-3.6 + make man sphinx-build -b man -d _build/doctrees . _build/man make: sphinx-build: Command not found make: *** [Makefile:117: man] Error 127 You removed SPHINXBUILD=sphinx-build-3 in the last change, was there any reason, or is it just a mistake?
A mistake. However, there is a new commit with a new spec with this also corrected. Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Traceur759/python-libsass/master/python-libsass.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/Traceur759/python-libsass/raw/master/python-libsass-0.13.4-1.fc27.src.rpm
Please fix the following rpmlint issues: python2-libsass.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/sassc.py /usr/bin/env python python2-libsass.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/sassc.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-libsass.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/sassc.py /usr/bin/env python python3-libsass.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/sassc.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-libsass.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/pysassc.1.gz
If anyone relies on this or is blocked by this, please, let me know. This package is not on top of my todo list.
A new, updated, and fixed version of the bindings is prepared. Spec URL:https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Traceur759/python-libsass/master/python-libsass.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/Traceur759/python-libsass/raw/master/python-libsass-0.14.5-1.fc28.src.rpm
BuildRequires: python2-devel python2-six python2-pytest python-werkzeug BuildRequires: python3-devel python3-six python3-pytest python3-werkzeug 1) as a matter of style, i recommend putting each BR on new line. it's better with diffs, commits, etc. 2) python-werkzeug -> python2-werkzeug ---- PLATFORM=... why si this needed? maybe add a comment ----- py.test-%{python2_version} -> py.test-2 py.test-%{python3_version} -> py.test-3 ----- %exclude %{_bindir}/sassc %exclude %{_bindir}/sassc.py add a comment? ----- Also, consider not doing the python2 package at all.
+ /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-mangle-shebangs *** WARNING: mangling shebang in /usr/lib64/python3.7/site-packages/sassc.py from #!/usr/bin/env python to #!/usr/bin/python2. This will become an ERROR, fix it manually! *** WARNING: mangling shebang in /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/sassc.py from #!/usr/bin/env python to #!/usr/bin/python2. This will become an ERROR, fix it manually!
I have updated the spec and dropped the python2 package.
Have you also updated the SRPM? I'd like to rebuild it in Koji.
Done. You may now launch a rebuild.
+ /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-mangle-shebangs *** WARNING: mangling shebang in /usr/lib64/python3.7/site-packages/sassc.py from #!/usr/bin/env python to #!/usr/bin/python2. This will become an ERROR, fix it manually! $ rpm -qp --requires python3-libsass-0.14.5-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm /usr/bin/python2 ...
Spec and SRPM updated. Shebang is fixed to /usr/bin/python3 and the package no longer requires python2.
Does /usr/lib64/python3.7/site-packages/sassc.py actually need the shebang and executable bit?
Actually, it does not, since it's under lib64. Sassc.py is no longer executable an no longer has a shebang.
Package APPROVED!
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-libsass
Please update this bug with recent info. A good thing would be to do one fo the following: - set "Fixed In Version:" to the first rawhide built and close this as RAWHIDE. - issue updates to Fedora 28 (and maybe F27) and set this bug number in bodhi, so it gets autoclosed (I suspect that's not gonna happen for this package, as it requires the libsass version from rawhide)