Spec URL: http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/python-gntp.spec SRPM URL: http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SRPMS/python-gntp-0.9-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: This is a Python library for working with the Growl Notification Transport Protocol. It should work as a drop-in replacement for the older Python bindings. Fedora Account System Username: konradm N.B.: This is a blocker for #519652 (SABnzbd+)
RPM lint clean: python-gntp.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gntp 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Cleaned up the spec somewhat: - Removed python_sitelib macro definition - Removed rm -rf buildroot in %install - BR python2-devel, not python-devel http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/python-gntp.spec http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SRPMS/python-gntp-0.9-2.fc18.src.rpm
And noticed that upstream put out new releases in March! Bumped to latest upstream: http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/python-gntp.spec http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SRPMS/python-gntp-1.0.1-1.fc18.src.rpm
Scratch build fails for Rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5508088 From build.log: creating build/scripts-2.7 error: file '/builddir/build/BUILD/gntp-1.0.1/scripts/gntp' does not exist RPM build errors: error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.D3kzjA (%build) Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.D3kzjA (%build) I'm not sure, but probably python-setuptools is missing from BuildRequires. Try to build your package first in a chroot environment like Mock or Koji.
(In reply to Mario Blättermann from comment #4) > Scratch build fails for Rawhide: > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5508088 > > From build.log: > > creating build/scripts-2.7 > error: file '/builddir/build/BUILD/gntp-1.0.1/scripts/gntp' does not exist > RPM build errors: > error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.D3kzjA (%build) > Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.D3kzjA (%build) > > I'm not sure, but probably python-setuptools is missing from BuildRequires. > Try to build your package first in a chroot environment like Mock or Koji. Yeah, from manual inspection, the setup.py fallback to distutils is broken. Easy enough to fix, thanks for spotting it. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5508119 Spec/SRPM: http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/python-gntp.spec http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SRPMS/python-gntp-1.0.1-2.fc18.src.rpm
Based on your Koji build: $ rpmlint -i -v * python-gntp.src: I: checking python-gntp.src: I: checking-url https://pypi.python.org/pypi/gntp (timeout 10 seconds) python-gntp.src: I: checking-url https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/g/gntp/gntp-1.0.1.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) python-gntp.noarch: I: checking python-gntp.noarch: I: checking-url https://pypi.python.org/pypi/gntp (timeout 10 seconds) python-gntp.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gntp Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. python-gntp.spec: I: checking-url https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/g/gntp/gntp-1.0.1.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Nothing of interest so far. The tarball contains a bundled egg-info, you have to remove it before building the rpm package: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Eggs#Upstream_Eggs There's no license specified in the tarball. Somewhat strange that the only usable license info is in the last rows of PKG-INFO... OK, although even the website doesn't have recognizable info, MIT is valid here. Maybe you should contact the upstream developer to have more clarity here. For the build, you should use the %{__python} macro: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros However, it's the default for the time being, but could be useful in the future once Python v3 becomes the default. Last but not least, don't set the "fedora-review?" flag for your own review tickets. This has to be set by the reviewer. If it is set, your ticket vanishes from the list of reviewable packages: http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html
(In reply to Mario Blättermann from comment #6) > The tarball contains a bundled egg-info, you have to remove it before > building the rpm package: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Eggs#Upstream_Eggs Fixed, thanks. http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/python-gntp.spec http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SRPMS/python-gntp-1.0.1-3.fc18.src.rpm > There's no license specified in the tarball. Somewhat strange that the only > usable license info is in the last rows of PKG-INFO... OK, although even the > website doesn't have recognizable info, MIT is valid here. Maybe you should > contact the upstream developer to have more clarity here. Done: https://github.com/kfdm/gntp/issues/45 > For the build, you should use the %{__python} macro: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros > However, it's the default for the time being, but could be useful in the > future once Python v3 becomes the default. Why? Will it always be python2? Will it change when the default changes? If it changes when the default changes, why wouldn't "python" also change? If it will always be python2, why is the macro named __python and not __python2? Generally, I'm not a fan of '%{__foo}' macros when 'foo' by itself will do. > Last but not least, don't set the "fedora-review?" flag for your own review > tickets. This has to be set by the reviewer. If it is set, your ticket > vanishes from the list of reviewable packages: > http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html Yeah, my mistake. I confused the intention of that flag with the last batch of packages I submitted. Let me see if there are any more set that I should clear. Thanks!
(In reply to Conrad Meyer from comment #7) > I'm not a fan of '%{__foo}' macros when 'foo' by > itself will do. > OK, you are not forced by the guidelines to use this macro, it's your choice. Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5508991 $ rpmlint -i -v * python-gntp.src: I: checking python-gntp.src: I: checking-url https://pypi.python.org/pypi/gntp (timeout 10 seconds) python-gntp.src: I: checking-url https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/g/gntp/gntp-1.0.1.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) python-gntp.noarch: I: checking python-gntp.noarch: I: checking-url https://pypi.python.org/pypi/gntp (timeout 10 seconds) python-gntp.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gntp Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. python-gntp.spec: I: checking-url https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/g/gntp/gntp-1.0.1.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. OK. --------------------------------- key: [+] OK [.] OK, not applicable [X] needs work --------------------------------- [+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review. [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. MIT [.] 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. [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. sha256sum * bad7a9a3d877e46dc13ad60cacca0442901ed9ebd96708cebe9b8f280652e382 gntp-1.0.1.tar.gz bad7a9a3d877e46dc13ad60cacca0442901ed9ebd96708cebe9b8f280652e382 gntp-1.0.1.tar.gz.orig [+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [.] 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. [+] 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. [.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. [.] 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. [.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [.] 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. [+] 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. [+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations) [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [+] 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). [+] 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. [.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [.] MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package. [.] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} [.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [.] 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. [+] 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. [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [.] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See Koji build above (which uses Mock anyway). [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [.] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. [.] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [.] 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. [.] 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. [.] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. ---------------- PACKAGE APPROVED ----------------
Thanks, Mario! I am moving later today so I may not be able to import the package for a day or two. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-gntp Short Description: Growl Notification Transport Protocol for Python Owners: konradm Branches: f18 f19 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Thanks Jon. Building in rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5514835 F19, F18: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5514848 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5514850