Bug 987738 - Review Request: dput - Debian package upload tool
Summary: Review Request: dput - Debian package upload tool
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: František Dvořák
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
: 1063075 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2013-07-24 03:43 UTC by Christopher Meng
Modified: 2015-09-17 02:24 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2014-01-04 05:45:22 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Bugzilla 1263821 0 unspecified CLOSED Review Request: dput-ng - Next generation Debian package upload tool 2021-02-22 00:41:40 UTC

Internal Links: 1263821

Description Christopher Meng 2013-07-24 03:43:28 UTC
Spec URL: http://cicku.me/dput.spec
SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/dput-0.9.6.4-1.fc20.src.rpm
Description: This is the debian package upload tool, or dput. dput has been developed
because dupload, the only tool for doing uploads, has quite
a few open bug reports and the code is in my opinion not very clean.

Fedora Account System Username: cicku

Comment 1 Ed Santiago 2013-07-30 17:23:33 UTC
1. Should /etc/bash_completion.d/dput be marked %config? It really isn't one, and no other bash_completion.d files are marked as such on my F19 box:

   for i in /etc/bash_completion.d/*;do printf "%02x %s\n" $(rpm -q --qf "%{fileflags}\n" -f $i) $i;done|grep -v ^00

2. Trivial consistency nit: 'install ... dput' has a trailing slash in the destination dir; no other install has a trailing slash.

3. The mkdirs ... are they necessary? Review guidelines state that "A package must own all directories that it creates". I think it's safe to remove everything except the two %{_datadir/%{name} ones, because the rest are owned by the filesystem package. (Even bash_completion.d, despite the messy rpm -qif /etc/bash_completion.d|grep ^Name).

Comment 2 Christopher Meng 2013-07-31 05:45:59 UTC
1. If I don't mark it as %config I'm afraid rpmlint will shout. But it's right to not mark them as they are not conf files. I remember someone has marked it as %config, or maybe I forget, whatever.

2. Fixed.

For issue 3, you can review my spec again:

Spec URL: http://cicku.me/dput.spec
SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/dput-0.9.6.4-2.fc20.src.rpm

Not sure if you are packager now, if you get approved later, please continue.

Comment 3 Christopher Meng 2013-07-31 05:45:59 UTC
1. If I don't mark it as %config I'm afraid rpmlint will shout. But it's right to not mark them as they are not conf files. I remember someone has marked it as %config, or maybe I forget, whatever.

2. Fixed.

For issue 3, you can review my spec again:

Spec URL: http://cicku.me/dput.spec
SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/dput-0.9.6.4-2.fc20.src.rpm

Not sure if you are packager now, if you get approved later, please continue.

Comment 4 Ed Santiago 2013-08-01 21:27:12 UTC
[ disclaimer#1: I'm not a packager yet; I'm just trying to learn the ropes ]
[ disclaimer#2: total n00b, so my interpretation of the guidelines may be off ]

That said...

1. Thanks for removing the %config. I'm pretty sure that's the right thing to do, and the rpmlint non-conffile-in-etc warning is ignorable.

2. Thanks.

3. I'm sorry, I was totally, embarrassedly confused about directory ownership. Your original mkdirs were in fact fine, and probably preferable to the mix of -D in some but not all install commands. Again, I'm really sorry for my confusion. But:

4. You removed the gzip actions, and changed the man page install commands to write .gz files. I do not think that does what you think it does. (As in: yes, the files are named .gz, but they are not actually gzip'ed).

Also, your -2 srpm seems to be corrupt (cpio: premature end of file). The sha1sum of my download is f33fce1a2cb4faab5504cc663649ca0ed0f4e63c.

Comment 5 Christopher Meng 2013-08-05 03:39:08 UTC
(In reply to Ed Santiago from comment #4)

Oh I forgot to cleanup my brain ;)

Manpage should be installed to destdit mandir/man1 with install.

Then RPM will automatically gzip them.

Fixed.


Spec URL: http://cicku.me/dput.spec
SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/dput-0.9.6.4-3.fc20.src.rpm

Comment 6 František Dvořák 2013-11-30 14:44:35 UTC
My observations:

1) description could be improved

Inspiration can be found in upstream: http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/dput.git;a=blob;f=debian/control;hb=HEAD .


2) license: there are "and above" in copyright notices, I think it should be GPLv2+


3) incorrect FSF address in /usr/bin/dput and /usr/bin/dcut, upstream should be notified


4) missing build requires python2-devel or python3-devel

Here it is not so clear, what to do with it.

There are *.py and *.pyc files in /usr/share/dput/, and this directory doesn't distinguish the python version. Proper directory could be %{python_sitelib} or %{python3_sitelib}, but these files are used as "plugins" and the code expects them in /usr/share/dput. Am I right these files should remain there? (I'm not python programmer.)

I that case it could be just used python-devel as the build dependency (= using default python BR).

Comment 7 Christopher Meng 2013-12-02 10:33:55 UTC
(In reply to František Dvořák from comment #6)
> My observations:
> 
> 1) description could be improved
> 
> Inspiration can be found in upstream:
> http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/dput.git;a=blob;f=debian/
> control;hb=HEAD .

Thanks, anonscm sometimes can't be accessed. I will change the description later.

> 4) missing build requires python2-devel or python3-devel
> 
> Here it is not so clear, what to do with it.
> 
> There are *.py and *.pyc files in /usr/share/dput/, and this directory
> doesn't distinguish the python version. Proper directory could be
> %{python_sitelib} or %{python3_sitelib}, but these files are used as
> "plugins" and the code expects them in /usr/share/dput. Am I right these
> files should remain there? (I'm not python programmer.)
> 
> I that case it could be just used python-devel as the build dependency (=
> using default python BR).

Well, I don't think this is a problem. This is not a python module, can't be used in system-wide, so we don't need to store it under python_sitelib, see my another package "git-cola".

Do you want to review it? ;)

Comment 8 František Dvořák 2013-12-02 12:27:41 UTC
Yes, I can review it. :-)

Do you plan to push it to EPEL? I can imagine dput could be useful also there (RHEL or RHEL-based server working with Debian packages...).

Comment 9 Christopher Meng 2013-12-09 08:28:37 UTC
(In reply to František Dvořák from comment #8)
> Yes, I can review it. :-)
> 
> Do you plan to push it to EPEL? I can imagine dput could be useful also
> there (RHEL or RHEL-based server working with Debian packages...).

Sure, why not ;)

I only don't include support for EL5 of all my packages.

Comment 10 František Dvořák 2013-12-13 13:35:43 UTC
Yes, EL6 is OK. It should not need the modifications. Waiting for the new version. :-) -- František

Comment 11 Christopher Meng 2014-01-03 18:21:31 UTC
(In reply to František Dvořák from comment #10)
> Yes, EL6 is OK. It should not need the modifications. Waiting for the new
> version. :-) -- František

Uh...New version? N-2 was released 1.5 years ago, N-1 released 0.5 years ago, awaiting what?

Comment 12 František Dvořák 2014-01-03 21:51:47 UTC
No, I just mean the new specfile/srpm, addressing the issues in comment #6.

Comment 13 Christopher Meng 2014-01-04 05:45:22 UTC
(In reply to František Dvořák from comment #12)
> No, I just mean the new specfile/srpm, addressing the issues in comment #6.

Sorry, after a moment's indecision, I decide to close this bug and package dput-ng to replace this old tool.

Please review that one when I'm ready ;)

Ref: http://dput-ng.debian.net/

Comment 14 Christopher Meng 2014-02-10 00:57:49 UTC
*** Bug 1063075 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***


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