Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-drgn/python-drgn.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-drgn/python-drgn-0.0.11-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: drgn (pronounced "dragon") is a debugger with an emphasis on programmability. drgn exposes the types and variables in a program for easy, expressive scripting in Python. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=65319098
- The doc package should be noarch: %if %{with docs} %package -n %{pypi_name}-doc Summary: %{pypi_name} documentation BuildArch: noarch Requires: python3-docs %description -n %{pypi_name}-doc Documentation for %{pypi_name}. %endif - I'd rather you disable the problematic tests than use ExcludeArch: # https://github.com/osandov/drgn/issues/98 ExcludeArch: armv7hl i686 # https://github.com/osandov/drgn/issues/99 ExcludeArch: s390x %if %{with tests} %check %pytest -k "not test_set_pid and not test_union and not test_read_float" %endif - Shouldn't the example be in %doc: cp -PR examples tools %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/drgn And tools/bpf_inspect.py in %{_bindir}? Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU General Public License, Version 3", "[generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "Expat License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "Expat License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU Lesser General Public License", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU General Public License, Version 2", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention)". 190 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python- drgn/review-python-drgn/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 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 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in drgn [?]: 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. [x]: 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: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1310720 bytes in /usr/share [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: drgn-0.0.11-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm drgn-doc-0.0.11-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm python-drgn-debugsource-0.0.11-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm python-drgn-0.0.11-1.fc35.src.rpm drgn.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Scriptable -> Scrip table, Scrip-table, Script able drgn.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US programmability -> improbability, profitability drgn.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary drgn drgn-doc.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C drgn documentation python-drgn.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Scriptable -> Scrip table, Scrip-table, Script able python-drgn.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US programmability -> improbability, profitability 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
Thanks! For examples and tools, I was following the same model that bcc-tools uses, which is to put the scripts under /usr/share. The examples here are fully working drgn scripts that could be useful in their own right, so it seems reasonable to install them alongside. And putting this stuff in /usr/bin would get confusing fast (e.g. drgn ships a lsmod script under examples). For the ExcludeArch, I'll check with upstream. I put them in out of caution as the test failures looked like legitimate issues, and I'm not sure drgn would work properly on those arches as-is.
(In reply to Davide Cavalca from comment #3) > Thanks! > > For examples and tools, I was following the same model that bcc-tools uses, > which is to put the scripts under /usr/share. The examples here are fully > working drgn scripts that could be useful in their own right, so it seems > reasonable to install them alongside. And putting this stuff in /usr/bin > would get confusing fast (e.g. drgn ships a lsmod script under examples). > Ok. > For the ExcludeArch, I'll check with upstream. I put them in out of caution > as the test failures looked like legitimate issues, and I'm not sure drgn > would work properly on those arches as-is. Let me know when you have an answer. ExcludeArch should be last resort.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #4) zebob, do you want to officially mark yourself as the reviewer? I have similar notes: - -doc could be noarch - the GitHub repo actually has a COPYING file, but this does not end up in the tarball from PyPI. I'd suggest adding it as an additional SOURCE (pointing to https://raw.githubusercontent.com/osandov/drgn/master/COPYING) and including it in drgn and drgn-doc (since the latter does not require the former). And/or file an issue upstream asking for it to be added to the PyPI archive - If examples are fully working I guess they're not really %doc, fair enough.
Yes I'll take it: - the GitHub repo actually has a COPYING file, but this does not end up in the tarball from PyPI. I'd suggest adding it as an additional SOURCE (pointing to https://raw.githubusercontent.com/osandov/drgn/master/COPYING) and including it in drgn and drgn-doc (since the latter does not require the former). And/or file an issue upstream asking for it to be added to the PyPI archive This is a good point, I had missed it.
We're gonna leave the ExcludeArch in place for now, besides the test failures we need to actually validate that drgn works properly on these platforms before enabling them. I'll file blocking bugs to track this per policy once the package is imported. Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-drgn/python-drgn.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-drgn/python-drgn-0.0.11-2.fc35.src.rpm Changelog: - Make doc subpackage noarch - Add license file
Ok, package approved.
Thanks! $ fedpkg request-repo python-drgn 1946660 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/33354
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-drgn
FEDORA-2021-c153368d8a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-c153368d8a
FEDORA-2021-505a82b5ae has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-505a82b5ae
FEDORA-2021-1df61eda3b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-1df61eda3b
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-5dc35d48dd has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-5dc35d48dd
FEDORA-2021-c153368d8a has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-c153368d8a \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-c153368d8a See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-505a82b5ae has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-505a82b5ae \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-505a82b5ae See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-5dc35d48dd has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-5dc35d48dd See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-1df61eda3b has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-1df61eda3b \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-1df61eda3b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-505a82b5ae has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-1df61eda3b has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-5dc35d48dd has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-c153368d8a has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.