https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1413474
Bug ID: 1413474 Summary: Review Request: python-pycdlib - Pure Python library for ISO manipulation Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: clalancette@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://clalance.fedorapeople.org/python-pycdlib.spec SRPM URL: https://clalance.fedorapeople.org/python-pycdlib-1.0.0-1.fc25.src.rpm Description: python-pycdlib is a pure Python library used to manipulate ISOs as defined in ISO9660. It supports most of the common extensions to ISO9660, such as El Torito, Joliet, and Rock Ridge. Eventually the "oz" package (already in Fedora) will come to depend on this library.
I've run through the basic package review guidelines for python packages here https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Pro... and here https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python?rd=Packaging/Python. I've also run this package through pylint, and all RPMs and SRPMs pass with exactly one exception, on the SRPM:
python-pycdlib.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://github.com/clalancette/pycdlib/archive/pycdlib-1.0.0.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found
While that is true, the upstream project doesn't release packages called "pycdlib-<version>.tar.gz"; it only releases "<version>.tar.gz". I think this is an acceptable warning, though if there is a way to fix this, I'd be glad to hear it.
Fedora Account System Username: clalance
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1413474
Filip Szymański fszymanski@onet.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fszymanski@onet.pl
--- Comment #1 from Filip Szymański fszymanski@onet.pl --- See: https://github.com/clalancette/pycdlib/pull/2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1413474
--- Comment #2 from Filip Szymański fszymanski@onet.pl --- 1) When you set a tag Name, Version, Summary, URL, etc. a macro is created %{name}, %{summary}, %{url}, ... The summary global is unnecessary.
2) Tests do not have to be part of the RPM package (or setup.py file) to be run. The build requires (pytest, genisoimage, etc.) and the %check section is all you need.
%check PYTHONPATH=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{python2_sitelib} py.test-%{python2_version} -v PYTHONPATH=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{python3_sitelib} py.test-%{python3_version} -v
3) Ok.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1413474
--- Comment #3 from Chris Lalancette clalancette@gmail.com --- (In reply to Filip Szymański from comment #2)
- When you set a tag Name, Version, Summary, URL, etc. a macro is created
%{name}, %{summary}, %{url}, ... The summary global is unnecessary.
Ah, I didn't realize that was the case. OK, I'll take that part of the patch then. Thanks.
- Tests do not have to be part of the RPM package (or setup.py file) to be
run. The build requires (pytest, genisoimage, etc.) and the %check section is all you need.
%check PYTHONPATH=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{python2_sitelib} py.test-%{python2_version} -v PYTHONPATH=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{python3_sitelib} py.test-%{python3_version} -v
Hm, OK. When I enabled those parts of the RPM, I got some errors:
Executing(%check): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.wD5Kvc + umask 022 + cd /home/clalancette/rpmbuild/BUILD + cd pycdlib-1.1.0 + PYTHONPATH=/home/clalancette/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/python-pycdlib-1.1.0-0.20170201000812git7204e8b.fc25.x86_64/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages + py.test-2.7 -v ============================= test session starts ============================== platform linux2 -- Python 2.7.13, pytest-2.9.2, py-1.4.32, pluggy-0.3.1 -- /usr/bin/python2 cachedir: .cache rootdir: /home/clalancette/rpmbuild/BUILD/pycdlib-1.1.0, inifile: collected 0 items
========================= no tests ran in 0.02 seconds ========================= error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.wD5Kvc (%check)
I'm on Fedora 25, x86_64. Any thoughts?
- Ok.
Cool. Thanks for your work on this so far!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1413474
--- Comment #4 from Chris Lalancette clalancette@gmail.com --- I got it. I needed to include the tests as part of the MANIFEST so that they would make it into the dist package, so that the RPM could then reference them. They seem to pass now.
This particular change is probably going to require that I do a new upstream release (at least, I think that's the easiest way to manage this). I'm going to do that, and then update the packages for review here.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1413474
--- Comment #5 from Chris Lalancette clalancette@gmail.com --- All right, I've now done another upstream release (1.1.0), and updated the SPEC, SRPM, and RPMs accordingly. I also tried building them in mock this time to make sure I got all of the BuildRequires, and indeed, I found one more: syslinux. So I think this should be ready to go, they are available here:
Spec URL: https://clalance.fedorapeople.org/python-pycdlib.spec SRPM URL: https://clalance.fedorapeople.org/python-pycdlib-1.1.0-1.fc25.src.rpm
Please give them another review when you have a chance. Thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1413474
VincentS vincent@casperlefantom.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |vincent@casperlefantom.net
--- Comment #6 from VincentS vincent@casperlefantom.net --- Hello, I'm not yet a packager, so this is an unofficial review.
REVIEW:
+ OK - NA X ISSUE
+ Package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + Spec file matches base package name. + Spec has consistant macro usage. + Meets Packaging Guidelines. + License + License field in spec matches + License file included in package + Spec in American English + Spec is legible. X Sources match upstream sha256sum: $ sha256sum pycdlib-1.1.0.tar.gz rpmbuild/SOURCES/pycdlib-1.1.0.tar.gz ae0d2aa92dbb40849666f4bcdd9b2c89f1c4e38cdd42bcb9a89a9e9aab8f14f6 pycdlib-1.1.0.tar.gz bd32606ded8d7bdd339d1024fd8a724342a1c0eb0d1c10625e144a467f9096a5 rpmbuild/SOURCES/pycdlib-1.1.0.tar.gz
- Package needs ExcludeArch + BuildRequires correct - Spec handles locales/find_lang - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. + Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. + Package is code or permissible content. + Doc subpackage needed/used. + Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig - .so files in -devel subpackage. - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - .la files are removed.
- Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
+ Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. + Package has no duplicate files in %files. + Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. + Package owns all the directories it creates. + Rpmlint output: $ rpmlint fedora_review/pycdlib/python-pycdlib.spec fedora_review/pycdlib/python-pycdlib-1.1.0-1.fc25.src.rpm /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/pycdlib-tools-1.1.0-1.fc27.noarch.rpm python-pycdlib.src: W: file-size-mismatch pycdlib-1.1.0.tar.gz = 127613, https://github.com/clalancette/pycdlib/archive/v1.1.0/pycdlib-1.1.0.tar.gz = 136340 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
+ final provides and requires are sane.
SHOULD Items:
+ Should build in mock. + Should build on all supported archs + Should function as described. - Should have sane scriptlets. - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. + Should have dist tag + Should package latest version
Issues:
1. Sources doesn't match with upstream.
You should verify your sources and rebuild the package with upstream sources. By the way, I think it could be great to plan a porting to Python3.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1413474
--- Comment #7 from Chris Lalancette clalancette@gmail.com --- It's odd that it doesn't match the upstream sha256 sum, since I created the release just for this review. I'll take a look and see what happened there.
By the way, pycdlib already supports python3, and this package actually exports both a python2-pycdlib and a python3-pycdlib. So we are good there.
Thanks for the review!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1413474
--- Comment #8 from Chris Lalancette clalancette@gmail.com --- All right, I uploaded another version (with the same version number), but this one has the right sha256sum. Please take another look when you have a chance, thanks.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1413474
--- Comment #9 from VincentS vincent@casperlefantom.net --- Ok, I checked, now they match: sha256sum pycdlib-1.1.0.tar.gz rpmbuild/SOURCES/pycdlib-1.1.0.tar.gz ae0d2aa92dbb40849666f4bcdd9b2c89f1c4e38cdd42bcb9a89a9e9aab8f14f6 pycdlib-1.1.0.tar.gz ae0d2aa92dbb40849666f4bcdd9b2c89f1c4e38cdd42bcb9a89a9e9aab8f14f6 rpmbuild/SOURCES/pycdlib-1.1.0.tar.gz
Sorry, it's true, there is already Python3 support.
Your package seems ok for me.
PS: Please pay attention to the files versions.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1413474
Julien Enselme jujens@jujens.eu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jujens@jujens.eu Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jujens@jujens.eu Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1413474
--- Comment #10 from Julien Enselme jujens@jujens.eu --- - Missing requires: python3-sendfile on the Python 3 package - Are the tools python2 only? - Missing COPYING in the tools subpackage - I believe RPM lints errors are false positive due to this change: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/python3_c.utf-8_locale
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. [X]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "LGPL (v2.1)", "Unknown or generated". 27 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/1413474-python- pycdlib/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [!]: 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 40960 bytes in 10 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]: 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]: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2-pycdlib , python3-pycdlib , pycdlib-tools [?]: Package functions as described. [X]: 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. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [X]: %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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python2-pycdlib-1.1.0-1.fc27.noarch.rpm python3-pycdlib-1.1.0-1.fc27.noarch.rpm pycdlib-tools-1.1.0-1.fc27.noarch.rpm python-pycdlib-1.1.0-1.fc27.src.rpm python-pycdlib.src: E: specfile-error Python runtime initialized with LC_CTYPE=C (a locale with default ASCII encoding), which may cause Unicode compatibility problems. Using C.UTF-8, C.utf8, or UTF-8 (if available) as alternative Unicode-compatible locales is recommended. python-pycdlib.src: E: specfile-error Python runtime initialized with LC_CTYPE=C (a locale with default ASCII encoding), which may cause Unicode compatibility problems. Using C.UTF-8, C.utf8, or UTF-8 (if available) as alternative Unicode-compatible locales is recommended. 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Requires -------- python2-pycdlib (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python2-pysendfile
pycdlib-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python2-matplotlib python2-networkx python2-pycdlib
python3-pycdlib (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi)
Provides -------- python2-pycdlib: python-pycdlib python2-pycdlib python2.7dist(pycdlib) python2dist(pycdlib)
pycdlib-tools: pycdlib-tools
python3-pycdlib: python3-pycdlib python3.6dist(pycdlib) python3dist(pycdlib)
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/clalancette/pycdlib/archive/v1.1.0/pycdlib-1.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ae0d2aa92dbb40849666f4bcdd9b2c89f1c4e38cdd42bcb9a89a9e9aab8f14f6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ae0d2aa92dbb40849666f4bcdd9b2c89f1c4e38cdd42bcb9a89a9e9aab8f14f6
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1413474 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1413474
--- Comment #11 from Chris Lalancette clalancette@gmail.com --- (In reply to Julien Enselme from comment #10)
- Missing requires: python3-sendfile on the Python 3 package
Good call, I'll fix that.
- Are the tools python2 only?
Right now, yes.
- Missing COPYING in the tools subpackage
Sure, I'll fix that.
- I believe RPM lints errors are false positive due to this change:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/python3_c.utf-8_locale
Ah, I don't see those on F-25. But if you think they are a false positive, I'll just leave it alone :).
I've uploaded a new version of the RPMS to the same location:
Spec URL: https://clalance.fedorapeople.org/python-pycdlib.spec SRPM URL: https://clalance.fedorapeople.org/python-pycdlib-1.1.0-1.fc25.src.rpm
Let me know if there is anything else I should fix. Thanks for the review, it is appreciated!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1413474
--- Comment #12 from Julien Enselme jujens@jujens.eu --- I think you should be more precise in your %files section and transform %{python3_sitelib}/* into %{python3_sitelib}/%{srcname}/ and add %{python3_sitelib}/%{srcname}-%{version}-py%{python3-version}.egg-info/ You should do the same for python 2. I didn't pay attention to that during my initial review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1413474
--- Comment #13 from Chris Lalancette clalancette@gmail.com --- (In reply to Julien Enselme from comment #12)
I think you should be more precise in your %files section and transform %{python3_sitelib}/* into %{python3_sitelib}/%{srcname}/ and add %{python3_sitelib}/%{srcname}-%{version}-py%{python3-version}.egg-info/ You should do the same for python 2. I didn't pay attention to that during my initial review.
Done now. I've uploaded it to the same place.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1413474
Julien Enselme jujens@jujens.eu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #14 from Julien Enselme jujens@jujens.eu --- Looks good. Approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1413474
--- Comment #15 from Chris Lalancette clalancette@gmail.com --- Excellent, thanks so much. I've opened up a new package request in pkgdb now.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1413474
--- Comment #16 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-pycdlib
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1413474
--- Comment #17 from Chris Lalancette clalancette@gmail.com --- Thanks.
I was able to clone the repository (fedpkg clone), and then when I tried to import the srpm (fedpkg import /path/to/srpm), I'm getting:
Could not execute new_sources: Request is unauthorized.
I *think* I have permissions (at least pkgdb says that I do), and I think my account is up-to-date, but I'm not sure. What can we do here?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1413474
Julien Enselme jujens@jujens.eu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #18 from Julien Enselme jujens@jujens.eu --- I think you can.
- Check it works ok for other repo - Send a mail to devel to explain your problem.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1413474
--- Comment #19 from Chris Lalancette clalancette@gmail.com --- I shouldn't try to do this stuff on Saturday night :). I had forgotten to re-kinit, which is why I was getting denied. I've got it now; thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1413474
Chris Lalancette clalancette@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed| |2018-08-09 13:36:30
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org