SPEC: https://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-pydeps.spec SRPM: https://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-pydeps-1.7.3-1.fc30.src.rpm Description Python module dependency visualization. This package installs the pydeps command, and normal usage will be to use it from the command line. koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=37058143 FAS: lbazan
I'd call the package simply pydeps. The executable seems the most important part. It'd be nice to have the description say a bit more what pydeps does.
Hi Zbyszek -- Ok let me fix the description Cheers
Hi Luis, Do you have an updated spec/srpm that I could review? Cheers, Ankur
Hi Luis, Any updates here?
Hi team Name fixed Test fixed Cosmetics Fixed SPEC: https://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/pydeps.spec SRPM: https://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/pydeps-1.8.8-1.fc32.src.rpm
Hrm, the build fails for me in mock: WARNING: Testing via this command is deprecated and will be removed in a future version. Users looking for a generic test entry point independent of test runner are encouraged to use tox. running egg_info writing pydeps.egg-info/PKG-INFO writing dependency_links to pydeps.egg-info/dependency_links.txt writing entry points to pydeps.egg-info/entry_points.txt writing requirements to pydeps.egg-info/requires.txt writing top-level names to pydeps.egg-info/top_level.txt reading manifest file 'pydeps.egg-info/SOURCES.txt' writing manifest file 'pydeps.egg-info/SOURCES.txt' running build_ext Traceback (most recent call last): File "setup.py", line 36, in <module> setup( File "/usr/lib64/python3.8/distutils/core.py", line 148, in setup dist.run_commands() File "/usr/lib64/python3.8/distutils/dist.py", line 966, in run_commands self.run_command(cmd) File "/usr/lib64/python3.8/distutils/dist.py", line 985, in run_command cmd_obj.run() File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/setuptools/command/test.py", line 238, in run self.run_tests() File "setup.py", line 31, in run_tests import pytest ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'pytest' This is a missing BuildRequires here.
Working on it! Cheers,
added dependencies pyyaml and pytest let me build again but its better disable the test after next release 1.9.0 https://github.com/thebjorn/pydeps/issues/54 Cheers,
Hi team -- SPEC: https://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/pydeps.spec SRPM: https://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/pydeps-1.8.8-1.fc32.src.rpm koji build --scratch rawhide pydeps-1.8.8-1.fc32.src.rpm Uploading srpm: pydeps-1.8.8-1.fc32.src.rpm [====================================] 100% 00:00:01 109.30 KiB 106.83 KiB/sec Created task: 43657268 Task info: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43657268 Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)... 43657268 build (rawhide, pydeps-1.8.8-1.fc32.src.rpm): free 43657268 build (rawhide, pydeps-1.8.8-1.fc32.src.rpm): free -> open (buildvm-armv7-06.arm.fedoraproject.org) 43657287 rebuildSRPM (noarch): open (buildvm-armv7-06.arm.fedoraproject.org) 43657287 rebuildSRPM (noarch): open (buildvm-armv7-06.arm.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 1 open 1 done 0 failed 43657418 buildArch (pydeps-1.8.8-1.fc33.src.rpm, noarch): free 43657418 buildArch (pydeps-1.8.8-1.fc33.src.rpm, noarch): free -> open (buildvm-armv7-24.arm.fedoraproject.org) 43657268 build (rawhide, pydeps-1.8.8-1.fc32.src.rpm): open (buildvm-armv7-06.arm.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 1 open 2 done 0 failed 43657418 buildArch (pydeps-1.8.8-1.fc33.src.rpm, noarch): open (buildvm-armv7-24.arm.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 0 open 3 done 0 failed 43657268 build (rawhide, pydeps-1.8.8-1.fc32.src.rpm) completed successfully Cheers,
Almost ready. Only a few tweaks, and perhaps enable tests (even if only for mock?). 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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "Expat License". 62 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/asinha/dump/fedora- reviews/1741624-pydeps/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]: 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. [?]: Latest version is packaged. ^ I see you requested for 1.9.0 and upstream released it. Use that? https://github.com/thebjorn/pydeps/releases [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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. ^ Since you are using the github archive which containts the tests, is there any reason to not run them? If they require internet connectivity, perhaps use the bcond_with system and at least test them on your system using mock with network enabled? [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: pydeps-1.8.8-1.fc33.noarch.rpm pydeps-1.8.8-1.fc33.src.rpm pydeps.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pydeps pydeps.src:51: W: macro-in-comment %check pydeps.src:52: W: macro-in-comment %{__python3} pydeps.src:23: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 23, tab: line 7) ^ Cosmetic again: please use either spaces or tabs throughout the spec. I think you may need to configure your editor to always use spaces, Luis? pydeps.src: E: specfile-error warning: line 40: second Description 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. ^ Please remove the extra description. It isn't needed. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- pydeps.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/thebjorn/pydeps <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> ^ False positive. pydeps.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pydeps 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/thebjorn/pydeps/archive/v1.8.8/pydeps-1.8.8.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a813d879c8a08bb1dad4bef7e5256eb01519532de7443fe0b8246effe9bccefd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a813d879c8a08bb1dad4bef7e5256eb01519532de7443fe0b8246effe9bccefd Requires -------- pydeps (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.8dist(setuptools) python3.8dist(stdlib-list) Provides -------- pydeps: pydeps python3.8dist(pydeps) python3dist(pydeps) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1741624 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: R, fonts, Ocaml, Java, PHP, Perl, SugarActivity, Haskell, C/C++ Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Hi Ankur Let me change the version to 1.9.0 has already been released. Working on it! Cheers,
Hi Ankur whitespace fixed URL is ok Issue was created in upstream to fix test extra desc fixed SPEC:https://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/pydeps.spec SRPM:https://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/pydeps-1.9.0-1.fc32.src.rpm Cheers,
dot added SPEC:https://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/pydeps.spec SRPM:https://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/pydeps-1.9.0-1.fc32.src.rpm
test pass! Ok
Great, looks good! XXX APPROVED XXX
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pydeps
FEDORA-2020-7c6009f807 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7c6009f807
FEDORA-2020-7c6009f807 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-7c6009f807 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7c6009f807 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-7c6009f807 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.