Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/jamacku/setconf/fedora-29-x86_64/00851622-setconf/setconf.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/jamacku/setconf/fedora-29-x86_64/00851622-setconf/setconf-0.7.5-1.fc29.src.rpm Introduction: Hi, my name is Jan Macku and I recently join Red Hat Czech Republic. I just packaged this small python tool. Can you please review this package and sponsor me if possible? Thank you. Description: Setconf is small utility that can be used for changing settings in configuration text files. It has no dependencies except the built-in Python modules. Fedora Account System Username: jamacku
I can sponsor you. Patrik would you like to review this?
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. [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. [-]: 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 10240 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]: 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. [?]: 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. [?]: 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: [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: setconf-0.7.5-1.fc30.noarch.rpm setconf-0.7.5-1.fc30.src.rpm setconf.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Small utility that can be used for changing settings in configuration text files. setconf.noarch: E: summary-too-long C Small utility that can be used for changing settings in configuration text files. setconf.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C Setconf is small utility that can be used for changing settings in configuration text files. It has no dependencies except the built-in Python modules. setconf.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/setconf.py /usr/bin/env python setconf.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/setconf.py 644 /usr/bin/env python setconf.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/setconf/COPYING setconf.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary setconf setconf.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Small utility that can be used for changing settings in configuration text files. setconf.src: E: summary-too-long C Small utility that can be used for changing settings in configuration text files. setconf.src: E: description-line-too-long C Setconf is small utility that can be used for changing settings in configuration text files. It has no dependencies except the built-in Python modules. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- setconf (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) Provides -------- setconf: python3.7dist(setconf) python3dist(setconf) setconf Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/xyproto/setconf/archive/0.7.5.tar.gz#/setconf-0.7.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 422667f60a49075b6ce641e27abc0d8956b17736c5c6083f45a8f07e37fcf71e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 422667f60a49075b6ce641e27abc0d8956b17736c5c6083f45a8f07e37fcf71e
Any conclusion? Also note that FedoaReview is automated (and quite broken) tool. You are doing the review, not the tool. You should not paste stuff like: Cannot parse rpmlint output But instead, you should run that check manually or decide is not worth it and remove that section. The same goes for the rpmlint output that actually happened here. Any comments on the errors? --------- Spec sanity check by me: 1) %files -n %{name} -> just %files 2) %{python3_sitelib}/__pycache__/%{name}.*.py* -> do you except any file extensions other than pyc here? 3) %{python3_sitelib}/%{name}-%{version}-py%{python3_version}.egg-info -> is this a directory? if so, use a trailing slash to make sure it stays that way 4) https://github.com/xyproto/%{name}/archive/%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz -> https://github.com/xyproto/%{name}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
So there is need to fix warnings/errors from rpmlint. - delete from summary dot and make it shorter (shouldn't exceed 80 characters) - break description into two lines or more lines (line also shouldn't exceed 80 characters) - I think that would be the best solution to delete (patch) shebang line in setconf.py - ask upstream to update fsf adress. - maybe ask them also about making man pages
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #3) > Any conclusion? Also note that FedoaReview is automated (and quite broken) > tool. You are doing the review, not the tool. You should not paste stuff > like: > > Cannot parse rpmlint output > > But instead, you should run that check manually or decide is not worth it > and remove that section. > > The same goes for the rpmlint output that actually happened here. Any > comments on the errors? > > --------- > > Spec sanity check by me: > > 1) %files -n %{name} -> just %files > > 2) %{python3_sitelib}/__pycache__/%{name}.*.py* -> do you except any file > extensions other than pyc here? > > 3) %{python3_sitelib}/%{name}-%{version}-py%{python3_version}.egg-info -> is > this a directory? if so, use a trailing slash to make sure it stays that way > > 4) > https://github.com/xyproto/%{name}/archive/%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}- > %{version}.tar.gz -> > https://github.com/xyproto/%{name}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar. > gz Sry, you was too quick for me and thanks I missed theese thinks
*things
One more thing: [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. What the upstream status? They run tests on Travis CI. https://travis-ci.org/xyproto/setconf/jobs/428555831#L450
Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/jamacku/setconf/fedora-29-x86_64/00855508-setconf/setconf.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/jamacku/setconf/fedora-29-x86_64/00855508-setconf/setconf-0.7.5-1.fc29.src.rpm There are updated new links to spec file and srpm package. I tried to fix/add everything you pointed out. See comment replies below.
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #3) > Any conclusion? Also note that FedoaReview is automated (and quite broken) > tool. You are doing the review, not the tool. You should not paste stuff > like: > > Cannot parse rpmlint output > > But instead, you should run that check manually or decide is not worth it > and remove that section. > > The same goes for the rpmlint output that actually happened here. Any > comments on the errors? > > --------- > > Spec sanity check by me: > > 1) %files -n %{name} -> just %files Fixed > 2) %{python3_sitelib}/__pycache__/%{name}.*.py* -> do you except any file > extensions other than pyc here? Fixed > 3) %{python3_sitelib}/%{name}-%{version}-py%{python3_version}.egg-info -> is > this a directory? if so, use a trailing slash to make sure it stays that way Fixed > 4) > https://github.com/xyproto/%{name}/archive/%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}- > %{version}.tar.gz -> > https://github.com/xyproto/%{name}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar. > gz I can't do it like this, because git/rpmbuild didn't get it. Url which is used to download tarball contain only version, but after download it is called <repo-name>-<version>.tar.gz. That is why my url contain anchor tag, to define name of tarball after download.
> git/rpmbuild didn't get it get what? $ LANG=C.utf8 wget https://github.com/xyproto/setconf/archive/0.7.5/setconf-0.7.5.tar.gz --2019-02-06 14:03:34-- https://github.com/xyproto/setconf/archive/0.7.5/setconf-0.7.5.tar.gz Resolving github.com (github.com)... 192.30.253.113, 192.30.253.112 Connecting to github.com (github.com)|192.30.253.113|:443... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 302 Found Location: https://codeload.github.com/xyproto/setconf/tar.gz/0.7.5 [following] --2019-02-06 14:03:34-- https://codeload.github.com/xyproto/setconf/tar.gz/0.7.5 Resolving codeload.github.com (codeload.github.com)... 192.30.253.121, 192.30.253.120 Connecting to codeload.github.com (codeload.github.com)|192.30.253.121|:443... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: unspecified [application/x-gzip] Saving to: ‘setconf-0.7.5.tar.gz’ setconf-0.7.5.tar.gz [ <=> ] 150.23K 418KB/s in 0.4s 2019-02-06 14:03:35 (418 KB/s) - ‘setconf-0.7.5.tar.gz’ saved [153833]
(In reply to Patrik Kopkan from comment #4) > So there is need to fix warnings/errors from rpmlint. > > - delete from summary dot and make it shorter (shouldn't exceed 80 > characters) Fixed > - break description into two lines or more lines (line also shouldn't exceed > 80 characters) Fixed > - I think that would be the best solution to delete (patch) shebang line in > setconf.py Fixed > - ask upstream to update fsf adress. I checked upstream and there is correct COPYING file, so in next release it should be OK. For now I replaced COPYING file by original from gnu.org. > - maybe ask them also about making man pages I contacted upstream via mail.
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #7) > One more thing: > > [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. > Test added. > > What the upstream status? They run tests on Travis CI. > > https://travis-ci.org/xyproto/setconf/jobs/428555831#L450 Thank you.
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #10) > https://github.com/xyproto/setconf/archive/0.7.5/setconf-0.7.5.tar.gz Sorry, I didn't try this url. Thank you. I'll replace it and post here new url for spec file and srpm package.
Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/jamacku/setconf/fedora-29-x86_64/00855533-setconf/setconf.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/jamacku/setconf/fedora-29-x86_64/00855533-setconf/setconf-0.7.5-1.fc29.src.rpm Updated Source0 URL.
Hi Jan, you can't put your license even if it the same type, so keep there the license of repo. I wanted also ask that there is some shell script that runs tests could we use them?
Hi Patrik, I tried it, but the problem is, that this test require shebang in setconf.py. The test run setconf.py several times with diferent parameters to different files to test functionality of the setconf.py. So In case of including this test into the spec file there need to be shebang in setconf.py. Btw, may I ask you the reason of removing shebang from setconf.py? I think that shebang should be there, because this tool will by called directly from terminal. Or am I wrong? Thank you.
%{_bindir}/setconf is a tool that can be called directly. %{python3_sitelib}/setconf.py is a Python library. If necessary it can be called as `python3 -m setconf`, and shouldn't have a shebang. The test is unfortunately testing the source, which doesn't match how this should be installed in a distro. For a system-installed package, "/usr/bin/env python" is the wrong shebang anyway (system tools shouldn't depend on the current $PATH). So, for RPM the test could have all "../setconf.py" changed to "%{__python3} ../setconf.py". The upstream might accept a commit that changes these to "$PYTHON ../setconf.py" (with $PYTHON defaulting to just "python").
Also note: setconf.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/setconf.py 644 /usr/bin/env python The "script" was not executable, so the shebang had no use what so ever. A shebang is only used when you execute a file. You cannot execute a non-executable file.
Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/jamacku/setconf/fedora-29-x86_64/00855916-setconf/setconf.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/jamacku/setconf/fedora-29-x86_64/00855916-setconf/setconf-0.7.5-1.fc29.src.rpm Updated spec file and srpm package. Added second test and removed install COPYING file command from %prep. COPYING file is already fixed in upstream, so next version should contain correct COPYING file. Thank you, Petr Viktorin.
Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/jamacku/setconf/fedora-29-x86_64/00860500-setconf/setconf.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/jamacku/setconf/fedora-29-x86_64/00860500-setconf/setconf-0.7.5-1.fc29.src.rpm Added man page.
Hi, The tests are not being run. The command "awk '/^..\/setconf.py/ { print "%{__python3} " $0; next } { print }' testcases/test.sh >testcases/test.sh" leaves test.sh empty. This is because the file is first opened for reading (by ">testcases/test.sh"), which deletes the contents. After that, "awk" is run with that file as output, and told to read the file as input. This could be solved by saving the modified test suite to a different file (for example, ">testcases/test-rpm.sh"), and running that for the tests. There are some other possible solutions on https://stackoverflow.com/questions/16529716/awk-save-modifications-in-place.
I assume that should be "the file is first opened for writing", not "reading".
Note that in my experience `sed -i ...` is commonly used in such scenarios instead of awk.
I noticed that there is new version of setconf out.
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #23) > Note that in my experience `sed -i ...` is commonly used in such scenarios > instead of awk. Hi, I tryed to use sed, but it didn't worked for me in this case, so a used awk.
Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/jamacku/setconf/fedora-29-x86_64/00862984-setconf/setconf.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/jamacku/setconf/fedora-29-x86_64/00862984-setconf/setconf-0.7.6-1.fc29.src.rpm Fixed bug with test script. Updated to setconf version 0.7.6.
I think that package is good to be in Fedora Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines ===== 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [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. [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. [-]: 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 10240 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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [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: [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: 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 ===== 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. [x]: 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. [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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: setconf-0.7.6-1.fc30.noarch.rpm setconf-0.7.6-1.fc30.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- setconf (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) Rpmlint -------- 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Provides -------- setconf: python3.7dist(setconf) python3dist(setconf) setconf Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/xyproto/setconf/archive/0.7.6/setconf-0.7.6.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 183bcabcd859fc86d57666dfd0d4befe96841ea1e664a70e89ffff4def613f4f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 183bcabcd859fc86d57666dfd0d4befe96841ea1e664a70e89ffff4def613f4f
> Fedora Account System Username: jamacku Jan, what is your Fedora username? Do you have a FAS account? https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/
My Fedora username is same as in Bugzilla. (jamacku)
In order to get into packagers groups, you need to sign the contributor agreement. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Fedora_Project_Contributor_Agreement
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #30) > In order to get into packagers groups, you need to sign the contributor > agreement. > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Fedora_Project_Contributor_Agreement Thank you.
Thanks. Now before I proceed with sponsoring, I'd like to see more reviews by you. Have you done any?
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #32) > Thanks. Now before I proceed with sponsoring, I'd like to see more reviews > by you. Have you done any? I currently reviewing Patrick's cursor package: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671787
Good. Try to get some more please. Taking something a bit out of your comfort zone (non Python) might teach you a lot, yet even Python reviews will do. Some Go: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/GWF6YOJTXQIPZO3AD6OQFL6Q4HVO7YIL/ Some Python (check if not stalled): https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&component=Package%20Review&list_id=10004883&product=Fedora&query_format=advanced&short_desc=python&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr Please put me in CC for the reviews you will be doing. Don't forget to clearly communicate that you are not yet sponsored and you are only providing "unofficial" reviews.
Miro, I decided to package alternatives (C) to Fedora. Once it will be ready, I will create bug and add put you to the CC.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/setconf