Spec URL: https://mcyprian.fedorapeople.org/python-pew.spec SRPM URL: https://mcyprian.fedorapeople.org/python-pew-1.1.1-1.fc27.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. This is a dependency of Pipenv — the officially recommended Python packaging tool from Python.org. Fedora Account System Username: mcyprian Successful build in Copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mcyprian/pipenv/builds/
- Source0 is 404 because you made a typo. Also use a more meaningful name for your archive, with: Source0: https://github.com/berdario/%{pypi_name}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz - Add a comment explaining what's the patch for or link to a bug report - This: export PYTHONPATH=$PYTHONPATH:%{buildroot}/usr/lib/python%{python3_version}/site-packages should probably be: export PYTHONPATH=$PYTHONPATH:%{buildroot}/%{python3_sitelib} - Remove the shebang: python3-pew.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/pew/shell_config/complete_deploy /usr/bin/env python Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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: "*No copyright* MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 49 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-pew/review-python- pew/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 1 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]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %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: python3-pew-1.1.1-1.fc28.noarch.rpm python-pew-1.1.1-1.fc28.src.rpm python3-pew.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) virtualenvs -> virtual python3-pew.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/pew/shell_config/complete_deploy /usr/bin/env python python3-pew.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pew python-pew.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) virtualenvs -> virtual python-pew.src:57: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/usr/lib/python%{python3_version}/site-packages 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings.
seems like bug 1385244 is a review request for the same package?
(This happened to me as well sometimes, please don't forget to check next time Michal.) What I see: * Michal's package is newer version, runs tests, has LICENSE file. * Mathieu's package has better name for an app, doesn't do the not necessary subpackages dance. (But it IMO wrongly provides python-pew and doesn't use prescribed python_provide macro). I suggest the best way would be to merge what's better in both and make both Michal and Mathieu the maintainers (possibly with Python SIG). Would that work for both of you?
Being a co-maintainer definitely works for me. I would like to have this package in Fedora soon to be able to proceed to packaging of Pipenv. I have fixed issues listed in the review, rebased spec file to version 1.1.2 and added installation of shell completion scripts: Spec URL: https://mcyprian.fedorapeople.org/python-pew.spec SRPM URL: https://mcyprian.fedorapeople.org/python-pew-1.1.1-1.fc27.src.rpm
As Miro said, please try harder to find if someone had already sent a review request. We probably would already have pew in Fedora had you just reviewed mine. (I submitted it more than a year ago!) I recommend this URL if you don't know it: https://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/ --- Now, to be honest, I'm happy to leave the package to someone else. I don't actually love packaging things (I've done too much of it I guess), I only do it when I need it. So if you want to maintain pew, please have at it. :) And I'm also happy to give you its dependencies, since I don't care about them outside of needing them for pew: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=1385244&hide_resolved=0 --- If I may though, the way you split the *-completion packages is just unnecessarily annoying for users. Those files are fine to put in the main package, it provides a much better UX to have them installed with pew. In addition, those completion files aren't enough to make things work. You also need to source /usr/lib/pythonX.Y/site-packages/pew/shell_config/init.$SHELL. But that file tries to source the completion file, so the latter ends up being sourced twice, which could lead to all sorts of undesired behaviours. I've talked about it with upstream there: https://github.com/berdario/pew/issues/142 (you'd have found that issue had you searched for the existing review request ;) ) My conclusion was that it's just easier to leave those files as they are, and rely on the upstream mechanism when launching pew for the first time. (it asks whether you want to source the appropriate file in your shell rc file) If you really want to install the completion files in the right places, then this would need some upstream work to drop init.$SHELL. You probably want to also `rm pew/shell_config/complete_deploy` in your %prep to fix the rpmlint issue (that script is completely unnecessary in the context of an RPM, see issue 142 upstream) I really think this should be named `pew`, not `python3-pew`, because this is primarily a cli application rather than a Python module. At the very least, if you want to stay with the `python3-pew` name, please make it provide `pew` to make it easier to install. Finally, what's up with bcond_without for the tests? Sure, I forgot to add the tests in my spec, it's great you added them. :) But what's the point of conditionally running them? That's not even possible in mock/Koji anyway.
Thanks for sharing your experience with completion scripts Mathieu. I have renamed package to pew and got rid of completion subpackages. I want to keep condition to skip test suite. It takes quite a long time to run pew's tests and I sometimes find it useful to disable it temporarily. The official builds will of course always run the tests. Updated files are here: Spec URL: https://mcyprian.fedorapeople.org/pew.spec SRPM URL: https://mcyprian.fedorapeople.org/pew-1.1.2-1.fc27.src.rpm
> Finally, what's up with bcond_without for the tests? Sure, I forgot to add the > tests in my spec, it's great you added them. :) But what's the point of > conditionally running them? That's not even possible in mock/Koji anyway. In mock it is! Both `mock` and recent versions of `fedpkg mockbuild` have --with and --without options.
@Michal: If you keep the with_check condition, you probably want to conditionalize this BR then, afaik it's only needed at runtime and for the tests: BuildRequires: python3dist(pythonz-bd) >= 1.10.2 The setup.py script has an explicit requirement on "virtualenv >= 1.11". Maybe add it explicitly as a BR/R? (it gets dragged in implicitly by virtualenv-clone with your spec file) Other than that, it's so close to the spec I had submitted that I'll let Miro finish the review he started. :) Do you want python-rangehttpserver, python-pythonz-bd and python-resumable-urlretrieve? I really only added them for Pew, I don't particularly care about them, so I'd be happier if they had a more interested maintainer.
> @Michal: If you keep the with_check condition, you probably want to conditionalize this BR When skipping tests in mock you'd probably also use --no-clean, so the extra BuildRequire doesn't hurt. (And, no need to make the spec more complex for what's just there for maintainers' convenience.) > Do you want python-rangehttpserver, python-pythonz-bd and python-resumable-urlretrieve? Please take them, Michal; it's only fair :)
> > Do you want python-rangehttpserver, python-pythonz-bd and python-resumable-urlretrieve? > > Please take them, Michal; it's only fair :) Also, I think Python SIG might be interested in co-maintaining those packages. Thanks Mathieu for all the info, I'll go ahead with the review soon.(In reply to
*** Bug 1385244 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Alright Mathieu I will take those packages.
> Tool to manage multiple virtualenvs written in pure python Please use uppercase P for Python. > # Add pytest marker to test requiring connection > Patch0: 0001-tests-connection-marker-fix.patch Is this posted upstream? Package is APPROVED. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=24266546 [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]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: 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: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. (I've checked Koji, had some local troubles) [-]: 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. [?]: 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. Unsure here. [-]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: pew-1.1.2-1.fc28.noarch.rpm pew-1.1.2-1.fc27.src.rpm pew.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) virtualenvs -> virtual pew.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pew pew.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) virtualenvs -> virtual 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Bogus. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory pew.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) virtualenvs -> virtual pew.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/berdario/pew <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> pew.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pew 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Bogus. Manpage maybe, but nobody cares. Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/churchyard/rpmbuild/FedoraReview/pew/pew.spec 2018-01-18 12:36:02.445037000 +0100 +++ /home/churchyard/rpmbuild/FedoraReview/pew/review-pew/srpm-unpacked/pew.spec 2017-12-20 12:48:53.000000000 +0100 @@ -26,8 +26,8 @@ %{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{name}} +Requires: python3dist(pythonz-bd) >= 1.10.2 Requires: python3dist(setuptools) >= 17.1 Requires: python3dist(virtualenv) >= 1.11 Requires: python3dist(virtualenv-clone) >= 0.2.5 -Requires: python3dist(pythonz-bd) >= 1.10.2 %description Not bad. Whatever order you prefer. Requires -------- pew (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) = 3.6 python3dist(pythonz-bd) >= 1.10.2 python3dist(setuptools) >= 17.1 python3dist(virtualenv) >= 1.11 python3dist(virtualenv-clone) >= 0.2.5 Provides -------- pew: pew = 1.1.2-1.fc28 python3.6dist(pew) = 1.1.2 python3dist(pew) = 1.1.2 Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/berdario/pew/archive/1.1.2/pew-1.1.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5e8c14523b81e37a0a856103705cdbdd8592656018baa2a4b69f8cfdfc738d42 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5e8c14523b81e37a0a856103705cdbdd8592656018baa2a4b69f8cfdfc738d42
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pew. You may commit to the branch "f28" in about 10 minutes.
pew-1.1.2-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-5ecbcbff22
pew-1.1.2-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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-2018-5ecbcbff22
> Alright Mathieu I will take those packages. I just made you admin for those 3 packages. Somehow I can't find how to remove myself, though. :-/ >> Please take them, Michal; it's only fair :) > > Also, I think Python SIG might be interested in co-maintaining those packages. The Python SIG already had commit permissions on all 3 packages.
>> Alright Mathieu I will take those packages. > > I just made you admin for those 3 packages. > > Somehow I can't find how to remove myself, though. :-/ And I just found it, thanks to Pierre-Yves. They are all yours now, take good care of them. :)
pew-1.1.2-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.