[Bug 2252811] New: Review Request: kconfiglib - Kconfig implementation in Python

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2252811

Bug ID: 2252811
           Summary: Review Request: kconfiglib - Kconfig implementation in
                    Python
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
          Hardware: All
                OS: Linux
            Status: NEW
         Component: Package Review
          Severity: medium
          Priority: medium
          Assignee: [e-mail]
          Reporter: [e-mail]
        QA Contact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail]
  Target Milestone: ---
    Classification: Fedora

Spec URL:
https://github.com/odra/kconfiglib-rpm/blob/master/python3-kconfig.spec
SRPM URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lrossett/yocto-dev-tools/...
Description: Kconfig implementation in Python.
Fedora Account System Username: lrossett

[Bug 2252811] Review Request: kconfiglib - Kconfig implementation in Python

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2252811

--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service  ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6724579
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

[Bug 2252811] Review Request: kconfiglib - Kconfig implementation in Python

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2252811

--- Comment #2 from Leonardo Rossetti  ---
[fedora-review-service-build]

[Bug 2252811] Review Request: kconfiglib - Kconfig implementation in Python

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2252811

--- Comment #3 from Fedora Review Service  ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6946790
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

[Bug 2252811] Review Request: kconfiglib - Kconfig implementation in Python

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2252811

--- Comment #4 from Leonardo Rossetti  ---
Spec URL:
https://github.com/odra/kconfiglib-rpm/blob/master/python3-kconfig.spec
SRPM URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lrossett/yocto-dev-tools/...
Description: Kconfig implementation in Python.
Fedora Account System Username: lrossett

[Bug 2252811] Review Request: kconfiglib - Kconfig implementation in Python

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2252811

--- Comment #5 from Fedora Review Service  ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6946805
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

[Bug 2252811] Review Request: kconfiglib - Kconfig implementation in Python

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2252811

Leonardo Rossetti  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Depends On|                            |1350884

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884
[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red
Hat upstream

[Bug 2252811] Review Request: kconfiglib - Kconfig implementation in Python

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2252811

Leonardo Rossetti  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Depends On|1350884                     |

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884
[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red
Hat upstream

[Bug 2252811] Review Request: kconfiglib - Kconfig implementation in Python

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2252811

Leonardo Rossetti  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

[Bug 2252811] Review Request: kconfiglib - Kconfig implementation in Python

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2252811

Paul Pfeister  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #6 from Paul Pfeister  ---
Hey Leonardo

Fedora Review fails as the spec file isn't found in the srpm. Possibly due to
the inconsistent naming between the package and file. If the package name is
kconfiglib, the spec file should be kconfiglib.spec (won't be picked up by the
review service otherwise).

Otherwise...
- The long-form description is too long for rpmlint
- Package summary shouldn't end with a period
- URL is duplicated in Source rather than using %{url} (doesn't break the
package, just better for maintainability)
- Files installed to site-packages should lose their shebang
- No man pages for any of the installed

Check out the changes suggested here:
https://github.com/odra/kconfiglib-rpm/pull/1

(lack of man pages not addressed by that PR)

[Bug 2252811] Review Request: kconfiglib - Kconfig implementation in Python

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2252811

--- Comment #7 from Leonardo Rossetti  ---
Thanks for the patch but I don't think that package provides any man pages
since it's a python library, should it use something else or another mechanism
to indicate that there is no manpage?

[Bug 2252811] Review Request: kconfiglib - Kconfig implementation in Python

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2252811

--- Comment #8 from Paul Pfeister  ---
Trying to figure out some other issue with the spec and forgot to mention it.

help2man was suggested to me by code@music, and I'm very pleased with the
result.
Being used in my own spec here:
https://github.com/ppfeister/pkg/blob/master/sherlock/sherlock-project.spec

Note L55-61 in %install:
```
install -d '%{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1'
PYTHONPATH='%{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib}' help2man \
    --no-info \
    --version-string='%{version}' \
    --name='%{summary}' \
    --output='%{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/sherlock.1' \
    '%{buildroot}%{_bindir}/sherlock'
```
And L72 in %files:
```
%{_mandir}/man1/sherlock.1*
```

Fairly easily adaptable.
For each bin that you want to generate a man page for, swap `sherlock` with the
name of the file.

The only problem was that you've got a bakers dozen different files being
installed that may (or may not) each warrant their own man page -- I'm debating
if there's a more 'friendly' way to address it rather than repeating that
entire chunk 13 times. Possibly expanding a loop, but that's still not the
prettiest.

If looped somehow, the 'sed's can be dropped to just one and included in the
loop as well...... in theory.