Spec URL: https://pagure.io/rpm-packaging/raw/master/f/python-pipdeptree/python-pipdeptree.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/rpm-packaging/blob/master/f/python-pipdeptree/python-pipdeptree.spec Description: pipdeptree is a command line utility for displaying the installed python packages in form of a dependency tree. It works for packages installed globally on a machine as well as in a virtualenv. Fedora Account System Username: dhanesh95
Made a mistake with the links. My bad. Spec URL: https://pagure.io/rpm-packaging/raw/master/f/python-pipdeptree/python-pipdeptree.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/rpm-packaging/blob/master/f/python-pipdeptree/python-pipdeptree-0.12.1-1.fc28.src.rpm
Do your best to run the tests. 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-pipdeptree/review-python- pipdeptree/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 20480 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. [-]: 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: python3-pipdeptree-0.12.1-1.fc29.noarch.rpm python-pipdeptree-0.12.1-1.fc29.src.rpm python3-pipdeptree.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualenv -> virtual python3-pipdeptree.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pipdeptree python-pipdeptree.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualenv -> virtual python-pipdeptree.src:52: W: macro-in-comment %check 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Thanks for the review! :) (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #2) > Do your best to run the tests. > I've pinged the respective maintainers for updating the required packages. I hope this gets resolved soon.
(In reply to Dhanesh B. Sabane from comment #3) > I've pinged the respective maintainers for updating the required packages. I > hope this gets resolved soon. What do you need? I'm fairly confident you don't need tox, you also probably can run the test without coverage reports. We also have pytest 3.6 (it might work) and pluggy 0.6.0 (as requested).
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pipdeptree
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #4) > What do you need? I'm fairly confident you don't need tox, you also probably > can run the test without coverage reports. We also have pytest 3.6 (it might > work) and pluggy 0.6.0 (as requested). The tox.ini file in the GitHub repo suggests having tox==3.0.0 and pytest==3.5.0 (the only pending requirements). Matthias (FAS ID: mrunge) replied to my email and has bumped up the spec for python-tox. I think he still needs to push an update to Bodhi. For pytest, I wasn't able to locate the 3.6.0 version on Fedora repos. Can you guide me on how I can get that?
https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/pytest Rawhide has 3.6.2-3.fc29 You can do: %if %{fedora} > 28 ...testy testy test... %endif if you want single spec. Also, have you actually tried with pytest 3.4 and seen that it failed?
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #7) > https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/pytest > > Rawhide has 3.6.2-3.fc29 > Ahh.. I thought F28 had pytest 3.6 > You can do: > > %if %{fedora} > 28 > ...testy testy test... > %endif > > if you want single spec. > > Also, have you actually tried with pytest 3.4 and seen that it failed? I don't think I'll have to do that. After taking some time to understand the upstream code and the tests, I figured that the tests are run under a virtual environment. See test-env and test target in the Makefile [1]. So the only package required for the tests is tox (any version) so as to avoid the `pip install tox` action in the Makefile. I've made the required changes to the spec and pushed them [2] [3]. However, are you sure that this is a safe way to run the tests? I'm a bit skeptical about pip running as root to install the test dependencies.
Missed the links. [1] https://github.com/naiquevin/pipdeptree/blob/master/Makefile [2] https://pagure.io/rpm-packaging/raw/master/f/python-pipdeptree/python-pipdeptree.spec [3] https://pagure.io/rpm-packaging/blob/master/f/python-pipdeptree/python-pipdeptree-0.13.0-1.fc28.src.rpm
Not optimal and also won't work. Koji has no Interwebz.
Where are we here?
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #11) > Where are we here? I'm figuring out how to run the tests. If I'm not able to do it, I'll upload the package without the tests.
python-pipdeptree-0.13.1-2.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-c34eb7a05a
python-pipdeptree-0.13.1-2.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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-2019-c34eb7a05a
python-pipdeptree-0.13.1-2.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
*** Bug 1741107 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Thank you and sorry