https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1739816
Bug ID: 1739816 Summary: Review Request: redminecli - CLI for Redmine Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: egegunes@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/egegunes/redminecli/fedora-3... SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/egegunes/redminecli/fedora-3... Description: redminecli is a command line Python application to interact with Redmine Fedora Account System Username: egegunes Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=36915934
This is my first package, I need a sponsor.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1739816
Ege Güneş egegunes@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1739816
J. Scheurich mufti11@web.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mufti11@web.de
--- Comment #1 from J. Scheurich mufti11@web.de --- This is only a informal review, i am not in the packager group
Rpmlint ------- Checking: redminecli-1.1.3-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm redminecli-1.1.3-1.fc31.src.rpm redminecli.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog redminecli.x86_64: E: no-binary redminecli.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary redmine redminecli.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1739816
--- Comment #2 from J. Scheurich mufti11@web.de --- This is only a informal review, i am not in the packager group
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: 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. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 32 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mufti/review- redminecli/licensecheck.txt [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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 must own all directories that it creates. [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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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: [ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: redminecli-1.1.3-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm redminecli-1.1.3-1.fc31.src.rpm redminecli.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog redminecli.x86_64: E: no-binary redminecli.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary redmine redminecli.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8", LANG = "en_US.UTF-8" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8", LANG = "en_US.UTF-8" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). redminecli.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog redminecli.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/egegunes/redmine-cli <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> redminecli.x86_64: E: no-binary redminecli.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary redmine 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/d4/29/c9fbd0b0beb707ad39a2028eb7feda... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b954b9ea29143af849a6f28077ab87b87591b2bb96805fbeff1f08feedcf424c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b954b9ea29143af849a6f28077ab87b87591b2bb96805fbeff1f08feedcf424c
Requires -------- redminecli (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3 python3.7dist(click) python3.7dist(colorama) python3.7dist(requests) python3.7dist(setuptools)
Provides -------- redminecli: python3.7dist(redminecli) python3dist(redminecli) redminecli redminecli(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.2 (65d36bb) last change: 2019-04-09 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -n redminecli Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: C/C++, Ocaml, fonts, Perl, SugarActivity, Java, R, Haskell, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1739816
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- (In reply to J. Scheurich from comment #2)
This is only a informal review, i am not in the packager group
You're supposed to fill the blanks [ ] otherwise it's not useful. You haven't added your own comments either.
- %global debug_package %{nil}
No, this is a Python package, it should be marked as noarch instead:
BuildArch: noarch
- Don't use PythonHosted for Source:
Source0: %{pypi_source}
- Not needed:
Requires: python3
- Bump to 1.1.4
- Your changelog entry must contain Version-Release info:
* Sat Aug 10 2019 Ege Güneş egegunes@gmail.com - 1.1.4-1
- Add a dot at the end of the description:
%description Redminecli is a command line interface for Redmine.
- LICENSE file mist be installed with %license in %files:
%files %doc README.md %license LICENSE
- The archive contains tests, consider running them in %check.
You might need to do a sed -i "s|os.mkdir|os.makedirs|" redmine/redmine.py in your code as .cache does not exist by default in the chroot.
BuildRequires: python3-pytest
[…]
%check %{__python3} -m pytest
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
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. [!]: 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". 32 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/redminecli/review- redminecli/licensecheck.txt [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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: 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. [!]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [!]: %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: [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: redminecli-1.1.4-1.fc32.noarch.rpm redminecli-1.1.4-1.fc32.src.rpm redminecli.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary redmine 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1739816
--- Comment #4 from Ege Güneş egegunes@gmail.com --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #3)
I updated the spec according to your review.
Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/egegunes/redminecli/fedora-3... SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/egegunes/redminecli/fedora-3... Latest Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=37314430
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1739816
--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - That's not needed, the file should be in licensedir
%{_docdir}/redminecli/LICENSE
- Add a nemline between your changelog entry
- You haven't added the tests?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1739816
--- Comment #6 from Ege Güneş egegunes@gmail.com --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #5)
- That's not needed, the file should be in licensedir
%{_docdir}/redminecli/LICENSE
The setup.py script tries to install license to `sys.prefix` (`/usr`) if include it in the dist. I couldn't see any macro that points to default licensedir. Can you point me the right direction?
- You haven't added the tests?
Tests confused me because Python Packaging Docs[1] explicitly says "Python modules must not download any dependencies during the build process.". But I need to download the packages' dependencies to test it? Am I missing something?
[1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_reviewer_...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1739816
--- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- (In reply to Ege Güneş from comment #6)
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #5)
- That's not needed, the file should be in licensedir
%{_docdir}/redminecli/LICENSE
The setup.py script tries to install license to `sys.prefix` (`/usr`) if include it in the dist. I couldn't see any macro that points to default licensedir. Can you point me the right direction?
mv it to %{_defaultlicensedir} if needed or exclide it with %exclude
- You haven't added the tests?
Tests confused me because Python Packaging Docs[1] explicitly says "Python modules must not download any dependencies during the build process.". But I need to download the packages' dependencies to test it? Am I missing something?
[1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ #_reviewer_checklist
If there is some needed deps, add them as BR. But I ran the tests with no issues without any added BR:
+ /usr/bin/python3 -m pytest ============================= test session starts ============================== platform linux -- Python 3.8.0b3, pytest-4.6.5, py-1.8.0, pluggy-0.12.0 rootdir: /builddir/build/BUILD/redminecli-1.1.4 collected 20 items tests/api/test_fetch.py ..... [ 25%] tests/api/test_get.py .......... [ 75%] tests/ui/test_priority.py . [ 80%] tests/ui/test_project.py . [ 85%] tests/ui/test_query.py . [ 90%] tests/ui/test_tracker.py . [ 95%] tests/ui/test_user.py . [100%] ========================== 20 passed in 0.72 seconds ===========================
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1739816
--- Comment #8 from Ege Güneş egegunes@gmail.com --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #7)
(In reply to Ege Güneş from comment #6)
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #5)
- That's not needed, the file should be in licensedir
%{_docdir}/redminecli/LICENSE
The setup.py script tries to install license to `sys.prefix` (`/usr`) if include it in the dist. I couldn't see any macro that points to default licensedir. Can you point me the right direction?
mv it to %{_defaultlicensedir} if needed or exclide it with %exclude
I excluded the license from dist.
- You haven't added the tests?
Tests confused me because Python Packaging Docs[1] explicitly says "Python modules must not download any dependencies during the build process.". But I need to download the packages' dependencies to test it? Am I missing something?
[1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ #_reviewer_checklist
If there is some needed deps, add them as BR. But I ran the tests with no issues without any added BR:
Tests require python3-pytest, python3-click and python3-requests to run. I built the rpm with tests successfully on my machine, because I had these packages already installed on my system. Maybe you had those too? Anyway I added them as BR.
Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/egegunes/redminecli/fedora-3... SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/egegunes/redminecli/fedora-3... Latest Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=37882269
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1739816
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- LGTM, package approved.
You still need to find a sponsor. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1739816
Mattia Verga mattia.verga@protonmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEW Assignee|zebob.m@gmail.com |nobody@fedoraproject.org Flags|fedora-review+ |needinfo?(egegunes@gmail.co | |m)
--- Comment #10 from Mattia Verga mattia.verga@protonmail.com --- Review stalled
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com