[Bug 755139] New: Review Request: python-nose-1.1 - Discovery-based unittest extension for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: python-nose-1.1 - Discovery-based unittest extension for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755139
Summary: Review Request: python-nose-1.1 - Discovery-based unittest extension for Python Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: a.badger@gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: ---
Spec URL: http://toshio.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-nose1.1.spec SRPM URL: http://toshio.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-nose1.1-1.1.2-2.el6.src.rpm Description: nose extends the test loading and running features of unittest, making it easier to write, find and run tests.
By default, nose will run tests in files or directories under the current working directory whose names include "test" or "Test" at a word boundary (like "test_this" or "functional_test" or "TestClass" but not "libtest"). Test output is similar to that of unittest, but also includes captured stdout output from failing tests, for easy print-style debugging.
These features, and many more, are customizable through the use of plugins. Plugins included with nose provide support for doctest, code coverage and profiling, flexible attribute-based test selection, output capture and more.
This package contains a newer version of nose than was originally included for use by packages that need the features and API made available since the original package release.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755139
--- Comment #1 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.badger@gmail.com 2011-11-18 19:45:03 EST --- This package is intended for EPEL6 (and possibly EPEL5 but I have no need of it there at the moment and the version of python-coverage on EPEL5 would need to be upgraded as well).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755139
Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |steve.traylen@cern.ch Blocks| |755065 QAContact|extras-qa@fedoraproject.org |steve.traylen@cern.ch Flag| |fedora-review?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755139
Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |python-nose-1.1 - |python-nose1.1 - |Discovery-based unittest |Discovery-based unittest |extension for Python |extension for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755139
--- Comment #2 from Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch 2011-11-19 10:01:57 EST --- +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing
MUST Items: [=] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. $ rpmlint ./python-nose1.1.spec ./python-nose1.1.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: nose-1.1.2.tar.gz See below for source URL. 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
python-nose1.1.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unittest -> unit test, unit-test, unattested python-nose1.1.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unittest -> unit test, unit-test, unattested python-nose1.1.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libtest -> lib test, lib-test, liberate python-nose1.1.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stdout -> stout, std out, std-out python-nose1.1.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizable -> customization, customize, customarily
okay, all in common usage but I don't like customizable very much being British.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. LGPLv2+ and Public Domain, [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. okay the man page is public domain. [+] 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. lgpl.txt [+] 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. It should move to a proper URL. [+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Builds in mock. [+] 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. [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires Builds in mock. [+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. No locales. [+] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. No shared links. [+] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review Not relocatable. [+] 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 package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [=] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. $RPM_OPT_FLAGS and %{buildroot} both in use. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage. [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [+] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [+] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [+] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go 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} = %{version}-%{release} [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. [+] 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. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
Summary: 1) I would move to the real source url since the tar works perfectly well on RHEL6.
2) The docs sub-package does not contain the license file and does not require the main package. I would add a dep on the main package to the doc package.
3) %{buildroot} and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS are in use:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_...
Actually RPM_OPT_FLAGS should not even be there , this is a noarch package.
4) A README.Fedora file should be added since this package obviusly falls into this category. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Eggs#Multiple_Versions
Quick check that it imports, - yes.
# python Python 2.6.6 (r266:84292, Jul 20 2011, 10:22:43) [GCC 4.4.5 20110214 (Red Hat 4.4.5-6)] on linux2 Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
import sys sys.path.insert(0,'/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/nose-1.1.2-py2.6.egg') import nose
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755139
--- Comment #3 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.badger@gmail.com 2011-11-19 14:01:02 EST --- (In reply to comment #2)
Summary:
- I would move to the real source url since the tar works perfectly well on
RHEL6.
I'm considering whether to build this for EPEL5 as well. The only thing currently blocking that is an older version of python-coverage which I could either disable the unittests and nose module for it (since it's an extension) or build a forwards compat package for that. So I'd rather leave the retarred file with the comment explaining the situation and how to create the tarball used.
I would add a dep on the main package to the doc package.
Done.
Actually RPM_OPT_FLAGS should not even be there
Done.
- A README.Fedora file should be added
Done.
New Package: SRPM: http://toshio.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-nose1.1-1.1.2-3.fc14.src.rpm SPEC: http://toshio.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-nose1.1.spec Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3526236
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755139
--- Comment #4 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.badger@gmail.com 2011-11-19 14:06:26 EST --- Wrong Koji build URL. Here's the correct build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3526259
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755139
Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch 2011-11-19 15:23:03 EST --- Looks good.
change
Requires: python-nose1.1
to
Requires: python-nose1.1 = %{version}-%{release}
before import.
APPROVED
I'm assuming that a new package is needed for sqlalchemy0.7, will wait for one to appear.
Steve.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755139
--- Comment #6 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.badger@gmail.com 2011-11-20 01:11:20 EST --- Thanks!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-nose1.1 Short Description: Discovery-based unittest extension for Python Owners: toshio lmacken Branches: el6 el5 InitialCC:
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755139
Pádraig Brady p@draigbrady.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |p@draigbrady.com
--- Comment #7 from Pádraig Brady p@draigbrady.com 2011-11-21 04:10:15 EST --- Will this spec create python3-nose rather than python3-nose1.1 ?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755139
--- Comment #8 from Pádraig Brady p@draigbrady.com 2011-11-21 04:24:02 EST --- Also for my own reference, I think it would be good if rebasing python-nose in RHEL, that both that and this package Provide: python-nose1 (Note that python-nose-1.0 is enough to build sqlalchemy at least)
That would allow dependent packages to require just python-nose1 and not need to install the actual python-nose1.1 compat package too. The rebased package would also need to Conflicts: python-nose1.1 as the eggs would overlap.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755139
--- Comment #9 from Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch 2011-11-21 05:46:27 EST ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Will this spec create python3-nose rather than python3-nose1.1 ?
Indeed I missed this , I ignored the python3 case or rather suggested it should be there but given it is there then python3-nose1.1 is very correct and necessary.
Steve
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755139
--- Comment #10 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.badger@gmail.com 2011-11-21 12:27:59 EST --- (In reply to comment #7)
Will this spec create python3-nose rather than python3-nose1.1 ?
I haven't tested (no python3 package yet on RHEL6) but the spec should do the right thing or error out:
# In %install rm %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/nosetests [..] mv %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/nosetests-%{python3_version} %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/nosetests%{maj_ver}-%{python3_version}
# In %files %{_bindir}/nosetests%{maj_ver}-%{python3_version}
Note, the reason that this isn't installed as python3-nosetests%{maj_ver} is that upstream chose to install the python3 script as nosetests-%{python3_version}. So to maintain consistency with any documentation that upstream generates around this, I stuck with a name that is easy to find via tab completion/etc.
(In reply to comment #8)
Also for my own reference, I think it would be good if rebasing python-nose in RHEL, that both that and this package Provide: python-nose1 (Note that python-nose-1.0 is enough to build sqlalchemy at least)
I'm loath to do that as python-nose-1.1 has incompatible API changes with python-nose-1.0. So some things can use either package but other things would break.
That would allow dependent packages to require just python-nose1 and not need to install the actual python-nose1.1 compat package too. The rebased package would also need to Conflicts: python-nose1.1 as the eggs would overlap.
The problem with trying to specify what the RHEL package should do is that we have no control over it. If RHEL were to rebase its nose packages, the right thing would be for it to rebase to 1.1 (as rebasing to 1.0 would also break API compat, they might as well take on the most recent version). If they do that, they should add an Obsoletes and Provides with python-nose1.1 and we should remove the python-nose1.1 package from EPEL at that time.
Note that the python-nose package will probably not need a Conflicts in any case -- since nose uses distutils rather than setuptools, its egg-info will use a different name and format than this package:
compat package installed via easy_install: /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/nose-1.1.2-py2.6.egg standard nose installed with distutils: /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/nose-1.1.2-py2.6.egg-info
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755139
Pádraig Brady p@draigbrady.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755139
--- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla limb@jcomserv.net 2011-11-27 17:06:54 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
Steve, please take ownership of review BZs, thanks!
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755139
Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |steve.traylen@cern.ch QAContact|steve.traylen@cern.ch |extras-qa@fedoraproject.org
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755139
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755139
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-11-28 07:07:51 EST --- python-nose1.1-1.1.2-4.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-nose1.1-1.1.2-4.el6
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755139
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-11-28 14:29:42 EST --- python-nose1.1-1.1.2-4.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755139
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |python-nose1.1-1.1.2-4.el6 Resolution| |ERRATA Last Closed| |2011-11-29 14:03:11
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-11-29 14:03:11 EST --- python-nose1.1-1.1.2-4.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla