Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/imcinerney/git-revise/fedora-32-x86_64/01361805-git-revise/git-revise.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/imcinerney/git-revise/fedora-32-x86_64/01361805-git-revise/git-revise-0.5.1-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: git revise is a git subcommand to efficiently update, split, and rearrange commits. It is heavily inspired by git rebase, however it tries to be more efficient and ergonomic for patch-stack oriented workflows. By default, git revise will apply staged changes to a target commit, then update HEAD to point at the revised history. It also supports splitting commits and rewording commit messages. Unlike git rebase, git revise avoids modifying the working directory or the index state, performing all merges in-memory and only writing them when necessary. This allows it to be significantly faster on large codebases and avoids unnecessarily invalidating builds. Fedora Account System Username: imcinerney
Hello, A few issues: - The checksum of the tarball in the SRPM and upstream doesn't match. Please make sure the SRPM is updated. - You might want to rename the tarball using the Source URL as: https://github.com/mystor/git-revise/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz but that's up to you. - Why does it require setuptools? It should be a BuildRequires only. - Please, open a bug report upstream with the included patch and reference it in the spec file. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/mystor/git-revise/archive/0.5.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c1698eac93a8f0aea454a0d65f51e92ab32f946d893ef2b43fd78000c0837d50 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3f64521eb056ff097eb282811459820e1afd138cf2de113d609051060459d24d diff -r also reports differences
This should also be "BuildArch: noarch", which will remove the need for disabling debuginfo subpackage.
Updated spec file: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/imcinerney/git-revise/fedora-32-x86_64/01381895-git-revise/git-revise.spec Updated SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/imcinerney/git-revise/fedora-32-x86_64/01381895-git-revise/git-revise-0.5.1-2.fc32.src.rpm > The checksum of the tarball in the SRPM and upstream doesn't match. Please make sure the SRPM is updated. Apparently it was still using the PyPi version that I initially made the spec using (but then modified to use the non-PyPi version). Fixed now. > You might want to rename the tarball using the Source URL as: https://github.com/mystor/git-revise/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz but that's up to you. Fixed. > Why does it require setuptools? It should be a BuildRequires only. That was added in by the pypi2rpm generator when I first ran it, so I guess it thought it was needed. I agree, it shouldn't be there though. > Please, open a bug report upstream with the included patch and reference it in the spec file. Done. > This should also be "BuildArch: noarch", which will remove the need for disabling debuginfo subpackage. I already had it as noarch in the spec, it's just I was concerned by the line + /usr/lib/rpm/find-debuginfo.sh -j12 --strict-build-id -m -i --build-id-seed 0.5.1-2.fc32 --unique-debug-suffix -0.5.1-2.fc32.x86_64 --unique-debug-src-base git-revise-0.5.1-2.fc32.x86_64 --run-dwz --dwz-low-mem-die-limit 10000000 --dwz-max-die-limit 110000000 -S debugsourcefiles.list /builddir/build/BUILD/git-revise-0.5.1 find: 'debug': No such file or directory" when running a mock build. I have removed that line now.
A few more things: - There's documentation that you can build with sphinx in the doc directory. It'll probably need to go to a doc subpackage. - If possible, you should run the included tests in the %check section.
> There's documentation that you can build with sphinx in the doc directory. It'll probably need to go to a doc subpackage. Is there any advantage to doing this? It appears that the docs are the manpage + installation instructions + contributing + a small set of API documentation, so according to the guidelines only the API documentation should be packaged - which is actually a very small amount of the docs set and hard to extract. It would seem that for this program, the manpage would be enough to package. > If possible, you should run the included tests in the %check section. Will do
Updated spec file: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/imcinerney/git-revise/fedora-32-x86_64/01400531-git-revise/git-revise.spec Updated srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/imcinerney/git-revise/fedora-32-x86_64/01400531-git-revise/git-revise-0.5.1-3.fc32.src.rpm
I'm afraid that as this package includes a python module, that will need to be split to a python3-git-revise subpackage, and the main package with the binary requiring the module. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_naming Please, split it and I will submit my formal review. Thank you.
Updated spec file: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/imcinerney/git-revise/fedora-32-x86_64/01444572-python-git-revise/python-git-revise.spec Updated srpm file: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/imcinerney/git-revise/fedora-32-x86_64/01444572-python-git-revise/python-git-revise-0.5.1-4.fc32.src.rpm This splits the package into 2: git-revise and python3-git-revise. git-revise contains the launcher and the man page, and the python3-git-revise package contains the python modules. The python3-git-revise package has a recommends for git-revise, so users will still get the launcher/man page.
Looks good. Approved. ===== 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]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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 2 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 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: 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. [-]: 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. [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. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: git-revise-0.5.1-4.fc33.noarch.rpm python3-git-revise-0.5.1-4.fc33.noarch.rpm python-git-revise-0.5.1-4.fc33.src.rpm git-revise.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subcommand -> sub command, sub-command, commandant git-revise.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rebase -> rebate, debase, re base git-revise.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workflows -> work flows, work-flows, workloads git-revise.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codebases -> co debases, co-debases, code bases python-git-revise.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subcommand -> sub command, sub-command, commandant python-git-revise.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rebase -> rebate, debase, re base python-git-revise.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workflows -> work flows, work-flows, workloads python-git-revise.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codebases -> co debases, co-debases, code bases 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. python3-git-revise.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/mystor/git-revise <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. git-revise.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subcommand -> sub command, sub-command, commandant git-revise.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rebase -> rebate, debase, re base git-revise.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workflows -> work flows, work-flows, workloads git-revise.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codebases -> co debases, co-debases, code bases git-revise.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/mystor/git-revise <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/mystor/git-revise/archive/0.5.1/git-revise-0.5.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3f64521eb056ff097eb282811459820e1afd138cf2de113d609051060459d24d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3f64521eb056ff097eb282811459820e1afd138cf2de113d609051060459d24d Requires -------- git-revise (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 git python3-git-revise python3-git-revise (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): git python(abi) python3.9dist(setuptools) Provides -------- git-revise: git-revise python3-git-revise: python-git-revise python3-git-revise python3.9-git-revise python3.9dist(git-revise) python3dist(git-revise)
FEDORA-2020-d1530ee346 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d1530ee346
python-git-revise-0.6.0-1.fc32 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 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-2020-d1530ee346
FEDORA-2020-d1530ee346 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.