Bug 1889768 - Review Request: oraculum - Backend and API for Fedora QA Dashboard
Summary: Review Request: oraculum - Backend and API for Fedora QA Dashboard
Keywords:
Status: ASSIGNED
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Miro Hrončok
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2020-10-20 14:27 UTC by František Zatloukal
Modified: 2020-11-05 15:16 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:
Type: Bug
mhroncok: fedora-review?


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Comment 3 Miro Hrončok 2020-10-30 13:56:28 UTC
Spec sanity:


> # Don't forget to also change oraculum/__init__.py

Is this spec file shared with upstream? I don't see this line relevant in Fedora.




> # Test requirements, we need to list these as there is no python3 builddep generator

But there is ;) https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros




The install section seems like a lot of code. Maybe this can be solved by upstream Makefile or package_data? Let me know if I shall try doing the second option.



https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets mentions to BR systemd-rpm-macros. Is systemd/systemd-devel actually needed on build time?



> # Remove compiled .py files from /etc after os_install_post
> rm -f %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/testcloud/*.py{c,o}
> rm -rf %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/testcloud/__pycache__

Doing this in %check is ether a neat trick or a dirty hack, depending on the perspective. Either way, no os_install_post action in Fedora currently bytecompiles files in %{_sysconfdir}. Is it really needed? Especially the .pyo thing seems a bit suspicious.

What Fedora/EPEL releases do you target with this spec file?

Comment 4 Miro Hrončok 2020-10-30 14:36:55 UTC
I've also noticed there is no %license.

Comment 7 Miro Hrončok 2020-11-05 15:16:12 UTC
One more thing that seems a bit odd. oraculum is not on PyPI. This is not (yet) a requirement in the Python guidelines, but it makes sense to me, when the package provides python3dist(oraculum) that `pip install oraculum` should install more or less the same thing.

Otherwise the spec looks sane and I'll proceed with Fedora-Review shortly.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.