Spec URL: https://nitsharma.fedorapeople.org/python-sumatra.spec SRPM URL: https://nitsharma.fedorapeople.org/python-sumatra-0.7.4-1.fc31.src.rpm Description: Tool for managing and tracking projects based on numerical simulation and/or analysis, with the aim of supporting reproducible research. It can be thought of as an automated electronic lab notebook for computational projects. Fedora Account System Username: nitsharma
Take a look at the guidelines: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ and the process: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers - Initial comment: the name of the spec should match the name of the package, so it should be called python-sumatra.spec. - I've also corrected the bug summary. If you want it to be searchable as python-sumatra, you set the "alias" field of the bug. - Since you're not yet a package maintainer, you need to block the FE-NEEDSPONSOR bug so that sponsors can find your bugs, - I've blocked the fedora-neuro bug since this is a neurofedora related review.
If it's only a python application and not a library/module, you can call it sumatra, but the spec and %{name} of the spec must match: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_naming I can continue the review once you've updated the spec name etc. :)
Any updates here Ntish?
Hi Ntish, any updates on this please?
Hi Ankur, Apologies, somehow, older mails skipped my mailbox. I am looking at the comments given, i will revert on it, once fixed. Regards Nitish
No worries, please ping when you're ready and I'll continue the review. :)
- Initial comment: the name of the spec should match the name of the package, so it should be called python-sumatra.spec. : updated Name of spec from sumatra.spec to python-sumatra.spec - I've also corrected the bug summary. If you want it to be searchable as python-sumatra, you set the "alias" field of the bug. Noted. - Since you're not yet a package maintainer, you need to block the FE-NEEDSPONSOR bug so that sponsors can find your bugs, Noted., and commented bug comments for tracking purpose. - I've blocked the fedora-neuro bug since this is a neurofedora related review. Noted and thanks Can you please check now?
A few issues to start with: - please update the description, - a bunch of rpmlint errors: Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-sumatra-0.7.4-1.fc33.noarch.rpm python-sumatra-0.7.4-1.fc33.src.rpm python3-sumatra.noarch: W: description-shorter-than-summary python3-sumatra.noarch: E: useless-provides python-sumatra python3-sumatra.noarch: E: useless-provides python38-sumatra python3-sumatra.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-sumatra.noarch: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/bin python3-sumatra.noarch: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/smt-complete.sh 644 python3-sumatra.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/bin/smt-complete.sh python3-sumatra.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/sumatra/pfi.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-sumatra.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/sumatra/tee.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-sumatra.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary smt python3-sumatra.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary smtweb python-sumatra.src: W: description-shorter-than-summary python-sumatra.src: W: inconsistent-file-extension sumatra-0.7.4.tar.gz python-sumatra.src: E: invalid-spec-name python-sumatra.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/s/sumatra/sumatra-0.7.4.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 8 warnings. - Doesn't install correctly: INFO: installing package(s): /home/asinha/dump/fedora-reviews/1809405-python-sumatra/results/python3-sumatra-0.7.4-1.fc33.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 33 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk install /home/asinha/dump/fedora-reviews/1809405-python-sumatra/results/python3-sumatra-0.7.4-1.fc33.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts We'll have to look into this. Please look into these while I run the other checks.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ ^ We'll look into this later. There are a few issues, but the package isn't quite complete at the moment. So, we can take it one issue at a time. ===== 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. Looks OK: $ licensecheck -r . | sed -e '/UNKNOWN/ d' -e '/GENERATED/d' ./LICENSE: BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License ./sumatra/web/static/css/bootstrap.min.css: Expat License ./sumatra/web/static/js/bootstrap.min.js: Expat License ./build/lib/sumatra/web/static/css/bootstrap.min.css: Expat License ./build/lib/sumatra/web/static/js/bootstrap.min.js: Expat License [?]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/bin(filesystem) ^ Best to list the various binaries instead of owning %{_bindir}. That way, if a new version includes new binaries, you will know when the build fails. [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. ^ Includes some css, js and fonts. We'll need to check where they are and if they can be unbundled. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. Looks OK [?]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. ^ Looks OK, but worth double-checking. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [?]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. ^ No docs have been included. The sources include documentation. Please consider building them and including them. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [?]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. ^ rpmlint picked up on this. One issue seems to be that the pypi name is "Sumatra" with a capital "S". That may explain why %pypi_source doesn't work. You'll need to update it to `%pypi_source Sumatra` or define another variable: %global pretty_name Sumatra and then use that where needed. [?]: Package does not generate any conflict. ^ Shouldn't have conflicts, but we'll check this when the package can be installed. [-]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [?]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. ^ We'll need to check this when the package installs correctly. [-]: 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. [?]: 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: 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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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. ^ Should be OK. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. ^ Should be OK [?]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python ^ Not yet :) [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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0: https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/s/sumatra/sumatra-0.7.4.tar.gz See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/SourceURL/ ^ Capital "s" needed. [?]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files ^ Needs checking. [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. ^ Does the source not include the LICENSE file? [?]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). ^ Will need double checking. [?]: Package functions as described. ^ This will come later. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [?]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [?]: %check is present and all tests pass. ^ Looks like it does contain tests. Please check. [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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /home/asinha/dump/fedora- reviews/1809405-python-sumatra/srpm-unpacked/sumatra.spec See: (this test has no URL) ^ You need to regenerate the srpm after you change the spec name. The name of the spec, and that of the srpm must match. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 2.2 starting (python version = 3.8.2)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins INFO: Signal handler active Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start: cleaning package manager metadata Finish: cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 2.2 INFO: Mock Version: 2.2 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/asinha/dump/fedora-reviews/1809405-python-sumatra/results/python3-sumatra-0.7.4-1.fc33.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 33 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk install /home/asinha/dump/fedora-reviews/1809405-python-sumatra/results/python3-sumatra-0.7.4-1.fc33.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-sumatra-0.7.4-1.fc33.noarch.rpm python-sumatra-0.7.4-1.fc33.src.rpm python3-sumatra.noarch: W: description-shorter-than-summary python3-sumatra.noarch: E: useless-provides python-sumatra python3-sumatra.noarch: E: useless-provides python38-sumatra python3-sumatra.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-sumatra.noarch: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/bin python3-sumatra.noarch: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/smt-complete.sh 644 python3-sumatra.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/bin/smt-complete.sh python3-sumatra.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/sumatra/pfi.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-sumatra.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/sumatra/tee.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-sumatra.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary smt python3-sumatra.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary smtweb python-sumatra.src: W: description-shorter-than-summary python-sumatra.src: W: inconsistent-file-extension sumatra-0.7.4.tar.gz python-sumatra.src: E: invalid-spec-name python-sumatra.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/s/sumatra/sumatra-0.7.4.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 8 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/open-research/sumatra/master/LICENSE : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6b342281c947a73dcff47e98c86ff2646d5a0b7e6ebb8c7cf4db489244ef6b04 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6b342281c947a73dcff47e98c86ff2646d5a0b7e6ebb8c7cf4db489244ef6b04 Requires -------- python3-sumatra (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.8dist(django) >= 1.6 with python3.8dist(django) < 1.9) /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.8dist(django-tagging) python3.8dist(docutils) python3.8dist(future) python3.8dist(httplib2) python3.8dist(jinja2) python3.8dist(parameters) python3dist(gitpython) python3dist(hgapi) python3dist(mercurial) Provides -------- python3-sumatra: python-sumatra python3-sumatra python3.8dist(sumatra) python38-sumatra python3dist(sumatra) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1809405 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Haskell, C/C++, fonts, Java, PHP, R, Ocaml, Perl, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Spec and rpm updated with changes, and getting installed on local. Can you please review again? Spec URL: https://nitsharma.fedorapeople.org/python-sumatra.spec SRPM URL: https://nitsharma.fedorapeople.org/python-sumatra-0.7.4-1.fc31.src.rpm Description: Tool for managing and tracking projects based on numerical simulation and/or analysis, with the aim of supporting reproducible research. It can be thought of as an automated electronic lab notebook for computational projects. Fedora Account System Username: nitsharma
Will do in the next few days. (We set needinfo when we've not received a response for a while, since that enables additional notifications from the bug).
Heya, You've changed the name of the package to python-Sumatra (with a capital S), so the links to the spec/srpm are broken. There's no need to capitalise the name, can you please correct that and upload a fresh spec/srpm? Cheers,
Hey Ankur, Thanks for the review, i have done the changes, you suggested, Cna you please review once again. https://nitsharma.fedorapeople.org/python-sumatra-0.7.4-1.fc32.src.rpm https://nitsharma.fedorapeople.org/python-sumatra.spec
Hi Ntish, It does not build at the moment. I see you have: python3 setup.py install in the %prep section? Why is this? It shouldn't be there. Please take a look at the example python spec here: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_example_python_spec_file You should also test your package by building it in mock in a clean environment: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_Mock_to_test_package_builds?rd=Extras/MockTricks Do ping me if you have any questions, I'm on lots of IRC/Telegram channels. Cheers, Ankur
Hi Ntish, Any updates here? Please ping me over e-mail etc if you need to :) Cheers, Ankur
Hi Ankur, I will look into it over weekend, I will ping you when i start.
Hi Ntish, Any chance you've been able to look at this again please? Cheers, Ankur
Hi Ntish, Any updates here please? Cheers, Ankur
Hey Ankur, Apologies, i got little busy and thie got out of my bucket somehow. I will pick it up over weekend, Additionally, Can we have meeting for it over the weekend? Regards Nitish
Hey, No worries, please take your time. Unfortunately, meetings are harder to do. Could you ask your queries here in the review ticket? (That's a perfectly normal + fine thing to do) Cheers, Ankur
There seems to be an issue with the current structure of git repo, the name of the repo is in consistence, somewhere it is Sumatra with a capital S, and at some places it is small s. I have tried my best to have a uniform structure in my local and fixed few issues, to build it in my local. I tried below commands to build to package, and i have attached response aling with it. $ fedpkg --release f32 local + RPM_EC=0 ++ jobs -p + exit 0 $ fedpkg --release f32 lint python-sumatra.src: W: file-size-mismatch Sumatra-0.7.4.tar.gz = 2312319, https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/S/Sumatra/Sumatra-0.7.4.tar.gz = 2067969 python3-Sumatra.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-Sumatra.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary smt python3-Sumatra.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary smt-complete.sh python3-Sumatra.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary smtweb 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. It's getting build on my local. $ mock python-sumatra-0.7.4-1.fc32.src.rpm INFO: mock.py version 2.3 starting (python version = 3.7.7)... Start(bootstrap): init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish(bootstrap): init plugins Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins INFO: Signal handler active .... ... Wrote: /builddir/build/RPMS/python3-Sumatra-0.7.4-1.fc30.noarch.rpm Executing(%clean): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.bjixo0 + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + cd Sumatra-0.7.4 + /usr/bin/rm -rf /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python-sumatra-0.7.4-1.fc30.x86_64 + exit 0 Finish: rpmbuild python-sumatra-0.7.4-1.fc32.src.rpm Finish: build phase for python-sumatra-0.7.4-1.fc32.src.rpm INFO: Done(python-sumatra-0.7.4-1.fc32.src.rpm) Config(default) 12 minutes 41 seconds INFO: Results and/or logs in: /var/lib/mock/fedora-30-x86_64/result Finish: run It's getting build on my local and even through mock.
I followed below steps to have successful build. 1.) build sumatra package and generated tar file from it. 2.) generated rpm package via fedpkg from tar file above 3.) tested using mock. I tried build from git, but it requires some changes to source code to have successful build. Can you please have a look at it again. Thanks for bearing with me :)
I have uploaded latest spec file and artifacts on https://nitsharma.fedorapeople.org/ Thanks again :)
Thanks! I'll have a look this week. On my list now.
Looks pretty good, but some work to be done yet. I'm afraid we can't modify the tar and then use the modified tar. You'll have to include patches if you need to make changes to the sources. The best thing to do is to open pull requests upstream, and that way you can generate patches using `git format-patches` and include them in the spec using %autosetup: https://rpm.org/user_doc/autosetup.html Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/asinha/dump/fedora-reviews/1809405-python-sumatra/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ - Consider building the docs? - I see that you've commented saying that the package does not contain tests, but I do see a test directory: could you double check please? ===== 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: "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 316 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/asinha/dump/fedora-reviews/1809405-python- sumatra/licensecheck.txt ^ There are fonts in the package, so we'll need to check their licenses and include them too. [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 [?]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. ^ I see docs are included, so we could consider building and packaging them? [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [?]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. ^ We can check if it's only an application, in which case we don't need the python- prefix: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_naming [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. [?]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. ^ Should we move some of the Requires to Suggests, so that advanced users may choose if they want to install all the deps? Pulling in all of django may not be the best thing to do, for example? [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. [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: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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: [?]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files ^ This needs to be looked at, probably only need to include their licenses. [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). ^ Uh, it requires django < 1.9? The current version of django in Fedora is 3.x? https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-django Upstream's latest snapshot also seems to require < 2.x: https://github.com/open-research/sumatra/blob/master/setup.py#L30 What do you think we should do here? We could look into updating the software to work with the new django, but I don't know how much work that'll be. [?]: Package functions as described. ^ It cannot currently be installed, so I couldn't test this out. [x]: Latest version is packaged. ^ See the comment above. [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. ^ Worth double checking if the tests are to be run. [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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint ^ Odd, the build seems to be OK. [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /home/asinha/dump/fedora- reviews/1809405-python-sumatra/srpm-unpacked/python-sumatra.spec See: (this test has no URL) ^ Also not sure about this one, the srpm seems python-sumatra too. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 2.4 starting (python version = 3.8.5)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins INFO: Signal handler active Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start: cleaning package manager metadata Finish: cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 2.4 INFO: Mock Version: 2.4 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/asinha/dump/fedora-reviews/1809405-python-sumatra/results/python3-Sumatra-0.7.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 34 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk install /home/asinha/dump/fedora-reviews/1809405-python-sumatra/results/python3-Sumatra-0.7.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-Sumatra-0.7.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm python-sumatra-0.7.4-1.fc34.src.rpm python3-Sumatra.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-Sumatra.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary smt python3-Sumatra.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary smt-complete.sh python3-Sumatra.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary smtweb python-sumatra.src: W: file-size-mismatch Sumatra-0.7.4.tar.gz = 2312319, https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/S/Sumatra/Sumatra-0.7.4.tar.gz = 2067969 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/open-research/sumatra/master/LICENSE : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6b342281c947a73dcff47e98c86ff2646d5a0b7e6ebb8c7cf4db489244ef6b04 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6b342281c947a73dcff47e98c86ff2646d5a0b7e6ebb8c7cf4db489244ef6b04 https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/S/Sumatra/Sumatra-0.7.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d85d788ba9963f3886cb3d20438b16d65e3de3fa5743e4f8f3958f6af728963c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f779912c3cf32405dc027fd5a3abd9d9ddbec0ba147e40dc80d5b80720b3fb11 diff -r also reports differences Requires -------- python3-Sumatra (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.9dist(django) < 1.9 with python3.9dist(django) >= 1.6) /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.9dist(django-tagging) python3.9dist(docutils) python3.9dist(future) python3.9dist(httplib2) python3.9dist(jinja2) python3.9dist(parameters) python3dist(django) python3dist(gitpython) python3dist(hgapi) python3dist(mercurial) python3dist(parameters) Provides -------- python3-Sumatra: python-Sumatra python3-Sumatra python3.9-Sumatra python3.9dist(sumatra) python3dist(sumatra) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1809405 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: Haskell, SugarActivity, fonts, R, Ocaml, C/C++, PHP, Perl, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Hi, Any updates here please? If the tool requires updating it to the new django, that may be quite a bit of work. You could just inform upstream and drop this until they fix it :( Cheers, Ankur
Please ping when when there's any progress. I'm dropping this from my task list for the time being.
Hey Ankur, It's in progess, I will update the ticket once there is progress.
Hello, Any updates here? Cheers, Ankur
Hey Ankur, Sorry for late reply, There is nothing much update on sumatra gitrepo, last tagged release was done in 2015. I am checking the developer list, if someone can be contacted for this purpose.
(In reply to Ntish from comment #30) > Hey Ankur, > > Sorry for late reply, > > There is nothing much update on sumatra gitrepo, last tagged release was > done in 2015. I am checking the developer list, if someone can be contacted > for this purpose. Thanks, that sounds good. Maybe we can open an issue in the meantime and see if someone reacts? Otherwise I'm afraid it's an inactive project :( Cheers,
Let's close this one Ntish---it doesn't look like the project is actively maintained. If you're looking for more packages to work on, we've got lots in our queue here. Please feel free to take any up from there: https://pagure.io/neuro-sig/NeuroFedora/issues Cheers, Ankur