Spec URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/pycmd/pycmd.spec SRPM URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/pycmd/pycmd-1.0-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: Pycmd is a collection of command line tools for helping with Python development. Notes: - pycmd was part of pylib (python-py) until python-py-1.3.4, and is no longer included starting with python-py-1.4.0. - It has a BR on the newer pylib (python-py), which has not been updated in rawhide yet because of a circular dependency to pytest (see bug 675587), but can be found here: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/python-py/ .
In order to maintain feature parity with the new python-py, shouldn't this be a python2 and python3 package?
(In reply to comment #1) > In order to maintain feature parity with the new python-py, shouldn't this be a > python2 and python3 package? Yeah, why not. Here we go: Spec URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/pycmd/pycmd.spec SRPM URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/pycmd/pycmd-1.0-2.fc15.src.rpm %changelog * Tue Jul 5 2011 Thomas Moschny <..> - 1.0-2 - Python3 subpackage.
Created attachment 513418 [details] patch for finer graned file/dir ownership I don't think that was enough to make/break the review but I added some finer-grained file ownership for the stuff in site-packages
Review comments: [ MAYBE ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package $ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/pycmd-1.0-1.fc14.noarch.rpm pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.lookup pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.countloc pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.which pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.cleanup pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.svnwcrevert pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.convert_unittest 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Under F15 (i386 and x86_64) I see the following rpmlint errors: $ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/python3-pycmd-1.0-2.fc15.noarch.rpm python3-pycmd.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US python3-pycmd.noarch: E: python-bytecode-inconsistent-mtime /usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/pycmd/pycountloc.pyo 2010-11-29T16:49:04 /usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/pycmd/pycountloc.py 2011-07-13T16:31:11 python3-pycmd.noarch: E: python-bytecode-inconsistent-mtime /usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/pycmd/pycountloc.pyc 2010-11-29T16:49:04 /usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/pycmd/pycountloc.py 2011-07-13T16:31:11 python3-pycmd.noarch: E: python-bytecode-inconsistent-mtime /usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/pycmd/pycleanup.pyo 2010-11-29T16:49:04 /usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/pycmd/pycleanup.py 2011-07-13T16:31:11 python3-pycmd.noarch: E: python-bytecode-inconsistent-mtime /usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/pycmd/pylookup.pyc 2010-11-29T16:49:04 /usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/pycmd/pylookup.py 2011-07-13T16:31:11 python3-pycmd.noarch: E: python-bytecode-inconsistent-mtime /usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/pycmd/pylookup.pyo 2010-11-29T16:49:04 /usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/pycmd/pylookup.py 2011-07-13T16:31:11 python3-pycmd.noarch: E: python-bytecode-inconsistent-mtime /usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/pycmd/pywhich.pyo 2010-11-29T16:49:04 /usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/pycmd/pywhich.py 2011-07-13T16:31:11 python3-pycmd.noarch: E: python-bytecode-inconsistent-mtime /usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/pycmd/__init__.pyc 2010-11-29T16:49:04 /usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/pycmd/__init__.py 2011-07-13T16:31:11 python3-pycmd.noarch: E: python-bytecode-inconsistent-mtime /usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/pycmd/pywhich.pyc 2010-11-29T16:49:04 /usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/pycmd/pywhich.py 2011-07-13T16:31:11 python3-pycmd.noarch: E: python-bytecode-inconsistent-mtime /usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/pycmd/__init__.pyo 2010-11-29T16:49:04 /usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/pycmd/__init__.py 2011-07-13T16:31:11 python3-pycmd.noarch: E: python-bytecode-inconsistent-mtime /usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/pycmd/pyconvert_unittest.pyc 2010-11-29T16:49:04 /usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/pycmd/pyconvert_unittest.py 2011-07-13T16:31:11 python3-pycmd.noarch: E: python-bytecode-inconsistent-mtime /usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/pycmd/pyconvert_unittest.pyo 2010-11-29T16:49:04 /usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/pycmd/pyconvert_unittest.py 2011-07-13T16:31:11 python3-pycmd.noarch: E: python-bytecode-inconsistent-mtime /usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/pycmd/pysvnwcrevert.pyo 2010-11-29T16:49:04 /usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/pycmd/pysvnwcrevert.py 2011-07-13T16:31:11 python3-pycmd.noarch: E: python-bytecode-inconsistent-mtime /usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/pycmd/pycleanup.pyc 2010-11-29T16:49:04 /usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/pycmd/pycleanup.py 2011-07-13T16:31:11 python3-pycmd.noarch: E: python-bytecode-inconsistent-mtime /usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/pycmd/pysvnwcrevert.pyc 2010-11-29T16:49:04 /usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/pycmd/pysvnwcrevert.py 2011-07-13T16:31:11 python3-pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.convert_unittest-3.2 python3-pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.lookup-3.2 python3-pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.svnwcrevert-3.2 python3-pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.countloc-3.2 python3-pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.cleanup-3.2 python3-pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.which-3.2 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 14 errors, 6 warnings. There are some questions about whether or not these errors are valid or not, will start conversation in another comment.a [ OK ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines => Since 'py' is in the package name, it doesn't need the 'python' prefix. [ OK ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [...] [ ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines [ OK ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines => MIT License [ OK ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license [ OK ] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc [ OK ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [ OK ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [ OK ] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. [ OK ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture [ OK ] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line [ OK ] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. [ NA ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden No locales used in upstream code [ NA ] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. No shared libs used [ NA ] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. Not designed to be relocatable [ OK ] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [ OK ] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [ OK ] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [ OK ] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [ OK ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [ OK ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [ ] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [ OK ] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [ NA ] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. No -devel package [ NA ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. No static libs [ NA ] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). No pkgconfig files [ NA ] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [ NA ] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [ OK ] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [ NA ] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. No GUI [ OK ] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [ OK ] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [ OK ] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. SHOULD requirements [ ] SHOULD query upstream to include it. [ NO ] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. No translations available [ OK ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. build in mock for fedora-15-x86_64 [ NA ] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Pure python package, runs where the python interpreter runs [ OK ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. binaries included run as expected on f15 x86_64 [ NA ] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. scriptlets not used [ NA ] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. no subpackages [ NA ] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. No pkgconfig files installed [ OK ] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [ NO ] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.[34] no man pages included with upstream code
I spoke with dmalcom about the rpmlint errors in IRC and the current thought is that the modifications to the .py files in %install shouldn't cause the mtime errors showing up in rpmlint for fc15. There was a change in .pyc location for python 3.2 as described in PEP3147 (http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3147/) and it appears that distutils has yet to be updated to use the new location (http://bugs.python.org/issue11254). If I'm understanding correctly, the .py files should be byte-compiled correctly after modification in %install but something in the fc15 python3 environment is missing them. Either way, the .pyc files won't be rebuilt every time since they're not in the correct location to start off with due to the distutils bug
Tim or Thomas: can you post the output of "rpm -qlv" on each of the built packages as an attachment to this bug please. My guess is that we're getting an extra set of .pyc files within the python3 subpackage: one set in the correct location (within a __pycache__ directory), with the correct timestamp, and another in the wrong location (same dir as the .py files), as per comment #5.
(or rpm -qplv, I guess)
(In reply to comment #6) > My guess is that we're getting an extra set of .pyc files within the python3 > subpackage: one set in the correct location (within a __pycache__ directory), > with the correct timestamp, and another in the wrong location (same dir as the > .py files), as per comment #5. Yes, that's indeed what is happening. Is there a workaround?
I've filed bug 722578 (adding as blocking this) against python3 to track fixing the python3 distutils bug. As per workarounds, I believe that the extra .pyc files will be ignored: assuming that we also have .pyc files in the correct location within the package, then the impact is merely wasted disk space. (Seems like an rpmlint bug as well, though)
I've removed bug 722578 from being a "blocker" for this one (which wasn't my intention, I just wanted to mark the relationship) (Given that as per: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722578#c1 everything else seems to be affected by this, it seems unfair to this review to have this issue block getting this package into the distro)
[X] rpmlint must be run on every package. pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.svnwcrevert-2.7 pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.countloc pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.lookup-2.7 pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.convert_unittest-2.7 pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.lookup pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.countloc-2.7 pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.which pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.cleanup-2.7 pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.which-2.7 pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.cleanup pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.svnwcrevert pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.convert_unittest [... bunch of python3 related error as discussed on this bug] python3-pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.convert_unittest-3.2 python3-pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.lookup-3.2 python3-pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.svnwcrevert-3.2 python3-pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.countloc-3.2 python3-pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.cleanup-3.2 python3-pycmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary py.which-3.2 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 14 errors, 18 warnings. [X] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [X] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [X] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [X] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. [X] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. License is MIT [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 must be included in %doc. [X] The spec file must be written in American English. [X] The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [X] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. source from the src.rpm: a8cd93030e4cea9f4c5fe5da555ce8ae56d03165 rpmbuild/SOURCES/pycmd-1.0.zip source from upstream: a8cd93030e4cea9f4c5fe5da555ce8ae56d03165 Downloads/pycmd-1.0.zip [X] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. Built successfully on F15 x86_64 but fails on koji due to the dependency on python-py [NA] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. [X] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. [NA] The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. [NA] Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files(not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [X] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [X] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [X] A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [X] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [X] Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [X] Each package must consistently use macros. [X] The package must contain code, or permissable content. [NA] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. [X] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [NA] Header files must be in a -devel package. [NA] Static libraries must be in a -static package. [NA] If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [NA] In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}. [NA] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [NA] Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. [X] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [X] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. PS: I removed the needinfo, I think we got the info we needed.
Again many thanks to pingou for the final review, and tflink for his comments! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: pycmd Short Description: Tools for managing/searching Python related files Owners: thm Branches: f16
Git done (by process-git-requests).
pytest-2.1.0-2.fc16,pycmd-1.0-3.fc16,python-py-1.4.4-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pytest-2.1.0-2.fc16,pycmd-1.0-3.fc16,python-py-1.4.4-2.fc16
pytest-2.1.0-2.fc16, pycmd-1.0-3.fc16, python-py-1.4.4-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository.
pytest-2.1.0-2.fc16, pycmd-1.0-3.fc16, python-py-1.4.4-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.
Thomas - would you be willing to maintain pycmd in EPEL7?
(In reply to Orion Poplawski from comment #17) > Thomas - would you be willing to maintain pycmd in EPEL7? Sure, will have a look.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: pycmd New Branches: epel7 Owners: thm