Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/pkopkan/testing-pep517/fedora-30-x86_64/00921297-pyproject-macros/pyproject-macros.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/pkopkan/testing-pep517/fedora-30-x86_64/00921297-pyproject-macros/pyproject-macros-0.1-10.fc30.src.rpm Description: This package brings %%pyproject_build and %%pyproject_install macros. This macros uses pip to build and install wheels. This is possible if the source distribution has pyproject.toml file defined in PEP518. Fedora Account System Username: pkopkan
Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/pkopkan/testing-pep517/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00949934-pyproject-macros/pyproject-macros.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/pkopkan/testing-pep517/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00949934-pyproject-macros/pyproject-macros-0.2-12.fc31.src.rpm
Several notes: 1. consider naming this pyproject-rpm-macros. there are hundreds of macro kinds, not just RPM macros 2. please don't tar the sources, keep them separate, see python-rpm-macros as an example - they will be editable in src.fp.o git directly 3. release number and %changelog are inconsistent, I suggest versioning this with 0 and only bump release 4. there are limits for %description length, have you try using rpmlint? also the text is quite unfortunate, rawhide is not for testing. 5. "Macros using pep517 to building python packages" -> "RPM macros for PEP 517 Python packages" 6. why "echo %{expand: %{version}}"? 7. there are macros for /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/, see python-rpm-macros as an example 8. the copyright in LICENSE is a bit unfortunate, can this be "pyproject-rpm-macros contributors" instead of just you? I remember writing an initial draft of those. also given the Fedora Project Contirbutor Agreement I don't think we need the LICENSE file, see python-rpm-macros as an example 9. sed -i -e 's/pip/rpm/g' %{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib}/*.dist-info/INSTALLER -- what about sitearch? 10. the README seems to still have notes from me to you, such as "XXX what?" -- do you consider this a shippable thing?
Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/pkopkan/testing-pep517/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00951151-pyproject-rpm-macros/pyproject-rpm-macros.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/pkopkan/testing-pep517/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00951151-pyproject-rpm-macros/pyproject-rpm-macros-0-1.fc31.src.rpm
Thanks. 11. Have you actually tried to install this package? It will probably fail as there is no "pip" package. 12. Please use the %{rpmmacrodir} consistently (i.e. also in %files). 13. Remove the brackets from [PEP 517] 15. you can drop the empty %build section
1. "%{rpmmacrodir}" is undefined. It's "%{_rpmmacrodir}": https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/blob/master/macros.in#L141-L142 2. Please include a license file, because other distros will copy these macros (Mageia and OpenMandriva, for example, source from us) and it's easier to comply with licenses when they exist in the source tree. 3. Please use "python3dist(pip)" or "python3-pip" instead of "pip" as a dependency. "pip" doesn't exist. 4. The %build section sets up %_builddir and %_buildsubdir, so don't drop it, just put a comment indicating there's nothing to do there.
Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/pkopkan/testing-pep517/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00955417-pyproject-rpm-macros/pyproject-rpm-macros.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/pkopkan/testing-pep517/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00955417-pyproject-rpm-macros/pyproject-rpm-macros-0-1.fc31.src.rpm Thank you both. (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #5) > 4. The %build section sets up %_builddir and %_buildsubdir, so don't drop > it, just put a comment indicating there's nothing to do there. That is interesting I wonder how that works. I can use %{_builddir} during %prep. The %{buildsubdir} is directory where compiled things get save ?
the LICENSE is not installed.
Also, you mix %{_rpmmacrodir} and %{rpmmacrodir} - have you tried to build the package?
Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/pkopkan/testing-pep517/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00955437-pyproject-rpm-macros/pyproject-rpm-macros.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/pkopkan/testing-pep517/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00955437-pyproject-rpm-macros/pyproject-rpm-macros-0-1.fc31.src.rpm I am sorry for such mistakes. Yes, I build them at my local machine and at copr. So macro %{rpmmacrodir} with underscore or without expands to same adress. About license there was error in thinking. License need another distros than fedora so I thought it would be enough to have it in srpm.
Package Review ============== Package APPROVED. Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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 must own all directories that it creates. [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. [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 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. [-]: 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 ===== 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. [-]: 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]: 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: pyproject-rpm-macros-0-1.fc31.noarch.rpm pyproject-rpm-macros-0-1.fc31.src.rpm pyproject-rpm-macros.noarch: E: devel-dependency python3-devel pyproject-rpm-macros.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US toml -> tom, tome, toms pyproject-rpm-macros.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US setuptools -> setup tools, setup-tools, toadstools pyproject-rpm-macros.noarch: W: no-url-tag pyproject-rpm-macros.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib pyproject-rpm-macros.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US toml -> tom, tome, toms pyproject-rpm-macros.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US setuptools -> setup tools, setup-tools, toadstools pyproject-rpm-macros.src: W: no-url-tag 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 7 warnings. Good. Requires -------- pyproject-rpm-macros (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python3-devel python3-pip Provides -------- pyproject-rpm-macros: pyproject-rpm-macros
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros
Hmm, it seems `%rpmmacrodir` is defined in redhat-rpm-config as a legacy macro: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/redhat-rpm-config/blob/master/f/macros.fedora-misc-srpm#_3-4 (In reply to Patrik Kopkan from comment #6) > (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #5) > > 4. The %build section sets up %_builddir and %_buildsubdir, so don't drop > > it, just put a comment indicating there's nothing to do there. > > That is interesting I wonder how that works. I can use %{_builddir} during > %prep. > The %{buildsubdir} is directory where compiled things get save ? Among other things, if a macro uses it, yes. For example, the debuginfo macros use it for a location to split symbols out.
Thanks for explaining.
FEDORA-2019-1605374339 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-1605374339
pyproject-rpm-macros-0-2.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-2019-1605374339
pyproject-rpm-macros-0-2.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.