Spec URL: https://wakko666.fedorapeople.org/python-cookiecutter/python-cookiecutter.spec SRPM URL: https://wakko666.fedorapeople.org/python-cookiecutter/python-cookiecutter-1.6.0-1.fc29.src.rpm Description: A command-line utility that creates projects from cookiecutters (project templates), e.g. creating a Python package project from a Python package project template. Fedora Account System Username: wakko666
- Same you didn't include the Python provide %package -n python2-%{pkgname} Summary: %{summary} %{?python_provide:%python_provide python2-%{pkgname}} %description -n python2-%{pkgname} A command-line utility that creates projects from cookiecutters (project templates), e.g. creating a Python package project from a Python package project template. %if %{with python3} %package -n python3-%{pkgname} Summary: %{summary} %{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{pkgname}} %description -n python3-%{pkgname} A command-line utility that creates projects from cookiecutters (project templates), e.g. creating a Python package project from a Python package project template. %endif # with python3 - Also you must build the docs with Sphinx. Add a BR for python2-sphinx and run: make docs Then include the resulting html directory with %doc instead of %doc docs.
I've added the python-provides. Spec & SRPM URLs from comment #1 are updated. However, building the docs requires additional sphinx contrib modules that aren't currently in fedora. Let me know if that blocks this review until those modules are packaged. Here's the error output: + make docs + docs Creating file docs/cookiecutter.rst. Creating file docs/modules.rst. make[1]: Entering directory '/builddir/build/BUILD/cookiecutter-1.6.0/docs' rm -rf _build/* make[1]: Leaving directory '/builddir/build/BUILD/cookiecutter-1.6.0/docs' make[1]: Entering directory '/builddir/build/BUILD/cookiecutter-1.6.0/docs' sphinx-build -b html -d _build/doctrees . _build/html Running Sphinx v1.6.6 making output directory... Extension error: Could not import extension docs.ccext (exception: No module named click) make[1]: *** [Makefile:53: html] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory '/builddir/build/BUILD/cookiecutter-1.6.0/docs' make: *** [Makefile:67: docs] Error 2 error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.aTHDN6 (%build)
python-click is packaged, you've got the list of Requires in the setup.py: requirements = [ 'future>=0.15.2', 'binaryornot>=0.2.0', 'jinja2>=2.7', 'click>=5.0', 'whichcraft>=0.4.0', 'poyo>=0.1.0', 'jinja2-time>=0.1.0', 'requests>=2.18.0', ] Also there are test to be run with: pytest<3.3.0 pytest-cov pytest-mock==1.1 pytest-catchlog freezegun
Thanks for the pointer. :) It looks like poyo and jinja2-time are not packaged. Everything else listed in setup.py appears to already be packaged. So, same question - will that block this review if this package does not include docs and tests?
It seems they are required for the library to work correctly? I mean as Runtime Requires.
You're right. After further investigation, these are runtime requires. I'll work on packaging those dependencies then I'll come back to this review.
All dependencies are now packaged. The RPM builds, complete with docs and tests. SPEC & SRPM URLs from Comment #1 are updated.
Package approved. 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: "BSD (3 clause)", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0) BSD (unspecified)", "Unknown or generated". 204 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review /python-cookiecutter/review-python-cookiecutter/licensecheck.txt [x]: 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. [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]: 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]: 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: [-]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [-]: 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. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2-cookiecutter , python3-cookiecutter [-]: 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. [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: python2-cookiecutter-1.6.0-1.fc29.noarch.rpm python-cookiecutter-doc-1.6.0-1.fc29.noarch.rpm python3-cookiecutter-1.6.0-1.fc29.noarch.rpm python-cookiecutter-1.6.0-1.fc29.src.rpm python2-cookiecutter.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cookiecutters -> cookie cutters, cookie-cutters, woodcutters python2-cookiecutter.noarch: W: no-documentation python-cookiecutter-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/python-cookiecutter-doc/docs/_build/html/.buildinfo python-cookiecutter-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python-cookiecutter-doc/docs/make.bat python3-cookiecutter.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cookiecutters -> cookie cutters, cookie-cutters, woodcutters python3-cookiecutter.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-cookiecutter.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cookiecutter python-cookiecutter.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cookiecutters -> cookie cutters, cookie-cutters, woodcutters 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-cookiecutter