SPEC: https://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-elpy.spec SRPM: https://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-elpy-1.28.0-1.fc29.src.rpm Description: Elpy is an Emacs package to bring powerful Python editing to Emacs. It combines and configures a number of other packages, both written in Emacs Lisp as well as Python. FAS Account: lbazan
Package Build ============= Builds Okay: - https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=34038420 Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Sources used to build the package do not match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Checksum differences are provided at the bottom of this review. - Your .spec file identifies a GPL license, yet your GitHub page and tar.gz file includes a GPLv3 license. I imagine this is just a typo in your spec? - You should have a peek at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bkabrda/EPEL7_Python3. From here you'll see some things you're doing nicely and some spots you just need a few tweeks such as: - drop reference to %{?python_enable_dependency_generator} - BuildRequires: %{py3_dist coverage} should read: BuildRequires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-coverage - You need to apply this to all of the BuildRequrires. - There are a few rpmlint warnings below which are not show-stoppers by any means, but useful to show as you can optionally fix them up too! :) - %check is disabled; but i can see that recently python-yapf (bz#1691609) has been pushed upstream now. So you can turn that back on and try it out to see how it works for you. ===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v3 or later)". 307 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/l2g/Development/reviews/review-python-elpy/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 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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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]: 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. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [!]: 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]: 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. [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /home/l2g/Development/reviews/review-python- elpy/srpm-unpacked/python-elpy.spec See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-elpy-1.28.0-1.fc31.noarch.rpm python-elpy-1.28.0-1.fc31.src.rpm python3-elpy.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Backend -> Backed, Back end, Back-end python3-elpy.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US elpyThis -> Pythias python3-elpy.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL python-elpy.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Backend -> Backed, Back end, Back-end python-elpy.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US elpyThis -> Pythias python-elpy.src: W: invalid-license GPL python-elpy.src:35: W: macro-in-comment %{py3_dist python-elpy.src:61: W: macro-in-comment %check python-elpy.src:62: W: macro-in-comment %{__python3} python-elpy.src: E: specfile-error warning: Macro expanded in comment on line 35: %{py3_dist yapf} 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 9 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/e/elpy/elpy-1.28.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f9ca80cbc52374b315b9985e7679e493a4d0426139f4c9a015fff4ba2e1f2851 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : da613f2391c6f2c7ca38366325a1eab5d6007551fb0da0adaddc74a98c5ba653
Another minor comment, the %changelog is just missing a proper close > tag after your email.
Hi Chris -- Fixed: source URL License typo changelog typo test enable dependency generator Update to new version 1.29.1 I not change the buildrequires: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bkabrda/EPEL7_Python3 <- this is a draft when this project approved I change to the new format. SPEC: https://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-elpy.spec SRPM: https://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-elpy-1.29.1-1.fc30.src.rpm Cheers,
mmmm let me fix some problems in test Please ignore.. do not review the new spec. test_should_refactor_global (elpy.tests.test_refactor.TestExtractMethod) ... skipped 'Python 3.5 not supported' test_should_refactor_local (elpy.tests.test_refactor.TestExtractMethod) ... skipped 'Python 3.5 not supported' Cheers
Please continue the review. Cheers,
SPEC: https://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-elpy.spec SRPM: https://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-elpy-1.29.1-1.fc30.src.rpm Test disable: https://github.com/jorgenschaefer/elpy/issues/1581
> I not change the buildrequires: No problem As per the review; great job. i have no qualms! Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== Comments ==== - I realize you've acknowledged that there is a bug not allowing you to run the tests. I just want to identify that i recognize this and you've documented it accordingly in the spec (and this ticket) :) so i don't personally see a problem here. ===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v3 or later)". [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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [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. [x]: 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.
Thanks Chris -- Can you change the flag to + Cheers,
My apologies Luis; :) Done.
(In reply to Chris Caron from comment #9) > My apologies Luis; :) > > Done. No problem! Thanks! Cheers,
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-elpy
python-elpy-1.29.1-1.fc30 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-f3592cb035
python-elpy-1.29.1-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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-f3592cb035
python-elpy-1.29.1-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Hello! It's great that we have rpm for elpy python package, but how should it work without rpm for elpy emacs package? Sorry, I'm a newbie with Emacs and would to use it as an editor for a python code with my Fedora machine. I know that Emacs has its own package manager, but I prefer to use system packages if available. Should I create a request for emacs-elpy rpm?
If you would like to package elpy emacs, please take a look at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers You can ask questions on the devel list and/or ask someone else to package it up if you prefer...