[Bug 1113328] New: Review Request: ioflo - Flow Based Programming Automated Reasoning Engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113328
Bug ID: 1113328 Summary: Review Request: ioflo - Flow Based Programming Automated Reasoning Engine Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: erik@saltstack.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://terminalmage.net/redhat/ioflo/ioflo.spec SRPM URL: http://terminalmage.net/redhat/ioflo/ioflo-0.9.35-1.el6.src.rpm
Description: Flow Based Programming Automated Reasoning Engine and Automation Operation System
Fedora Account System Username: terminalmage
This will be an optional dependency for salt (https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=13129) beginning with the next feature release.
I currently maintain one package and co-maintain two others (including salt), so I should not require sponsorship.
I will need branches on el5, el6, epel7, f19, f20, and rawhide, though a compatible version of python-importlib is currently available only on el6. I've opened the following two issues to get it built on the other branches:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113321 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113323
However, this builds on el6 just fine. rpmlint -v shows no errors:
ioflo.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install ioflo.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean ioflo.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag ioflo.spec: W: no-%build-section ioflo.spec: W: no-%clean-section ioflo.spec: I: checking-url http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/i/ioflo/ioflo-0.9.35.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113328
Erik Johnson erik@saltstack.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113328
Erik Johnson erik@saltstack.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113328
Erik Johnson erik@saltstack.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: ioflo - |Review Request: |Flow Based Programming |python-ioflo - Flow Based |Automated Reasoning Engine |Programming Automated | |Reasoning Engine
--- Comment #1 from Erik Johnson erik@saltstack.com --- gg
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113328
--- Comment #2 from Erik Johnson erik@saltstack.com --- Oops, sorry for that previous post. Didn't know there was text in the box when I renamed the issue.
Since this is a python module, I decided it would be more prudent to call the package "python-ioflo". I've uploaded a new spec and SRPM. Here are the new URLs:
Spec URL: http://terminalmage.net/redhat/python-ioflo/python-ioflo.spec SRPM URL: http://terminalmage.net/redhat/python-ioflo/python-ioflo-0.9.35-1.el6.src.rp...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113328
--- Comment #3 from Erik Johnson erik@saltstack.com --- I've updated the SPEC to fix the lint warnings, and also set it up for python3 support, which should be coming in the next release of ioflo. For now though, python3 support is disabled by setting with_python3 to 0.
Here are the updated SPEC and SRPM:
Spec URL: http://terminalmage.net/redhat/python-ioflo/python-ioflo.spec SRPM URL: http://terminalmage.net/redhat/python-ioflo/python-ioflo-0.9.38-1.el6.src.rp...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113328
Sergio Pascual sergio.pasra@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |sergio.pasra@gmail.com Docs Contact| |sergio.pasra@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113328
--- Comment #4 from Erik Johnson erik@saltstack.com --- Yet another spec and SRPM, this one just updates to 0.9.39 and turns on python3 support. Tested a mock build for Fedora 20 and it worked.
Spec URL: http://terminalmage.net/redhat/python-ioflo/0.9.39/python-ioflo.spec SRPM URL: http://terminalmage.net/redhat/python-ioflo/0.9.39/python-ioflo-0.9.39-1.el6...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113328
Sergio Pascual sergio.pasra@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |sergio.pasra@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113328
Sergio Pascual sergio.pasra@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Docs Contact|sergio.pasra@gmail.com |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113328
--- Comment #5 from Sergio Pascual sergio.pasra@gmail.com --- There is a problem with the ioflo script in /usr/bin. Both python3-ioflo and python-ioflo install ioflo in /usr/bin, but is the python2 version what appears in both packages. That means that python3-ioflo installs python2, what is wrong.
More about this problem here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python?rd=Packaging/Python#Executab...
Apart from this,
* there is a typo in the Summary, programing should be programming * the files ioflo/app/test/example.py and ioflo/app/test/testStart.py have a /usr/bin/env in the first line. This is generally useless in library code.
I usually remove it with sed -i -e '1d' $file in %pre, and then file a bug upstream
* the tarball in pypi has a lot less files than in the github repository. License and docs are there but not in the tarball. This is probably a problem of packaging, files are missing in MANIFEST.in. I suggest you fill a bug about this, so that the future tarballs of ioflo come with its license
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113328
--- Comment #6 from Erik Johnson erik@saltstack.com --- The link you posted is unclear. What is the resolution for this?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113328
--- Comment #7 from Erik Johnson erik@saltstack.com --- Also, those files with /usr/bin/env at the top are test scripts designed to be run from the command line, I believe.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113328
--- Comment #8 from Sergio Pascual sergio.pasra@gmail.com --- (In reply to Erik Johnson from comment #6)
The link you posted is unclear. What is the resolution for this?
It depends on the functionallity of the script. If the python2 and python3 versions do the same thing, then you should package only one, currently the python2 version, I think.
If they differ, you should package both under different names, i.e. ioflo-2 ioflo-3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113328
--- Comment #9 from Sergio Pascual sergio.pasra@gmail.com --- (In reply to Erik Johnson from comment #7)
Also, those files with /usr/bin/env at the top are test scripts designed to be run from the command line, I believe.
But they don't have the executable permission, so they can't be run from the command line unless you do
python ioflo/app/test/example.py
and then you don't need the shebang either. Shebangs are useless in library code.
If ioflo/app/test/example.py is an example, then it should go in %doc, not in in the library.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113328
--- Comment #10 from Sergio Pascual sergio.pasra@gmail.com --- By the way, you don't need this
%{?filter_setup: %filter_provides_in %{python2_sitearch}/.*.so$ %if 0%{?with_python3} %filter_provides_in %{python3_sitearch}/.*.so$ %endif %filter_setup }
because this package doesn't provide .so files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113328
--- Comment #11 from Erik Johnson erik@saltstack.com --- I'm not quite clear how I would simply "not package" the python3 version, since it is installed into the rpm root by setup.py install. Do you have any recommendations?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113328
--- Comment #12 from Sergio Pascual sergio.pasra@gmail.com --- Remove the line
%{_bindir}/%{srcname}
from the python3 package and check that the ioflo script is the one with /usr/bin/python2 as the shebang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113328
--- Comment #13 from Erik Johnson erik@saltstack.com --- The SPEC and SRPM have been updated to remove the python3 version of the executable.
New SPEC: http://terminalmage.net/redhat/python-ioflo/python-ioflo.spec New SRPM: http://terminalmage.net/redhat/python-ioflo/python-ioflo-0.9.39-2.el6.src.rp...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113328
--- Comment #14 from Sergio Pascual sergio.pasra@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items ===== ===== 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 %doc. [X]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [X]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [X]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [X]: Changelog in prescribed format. [-]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [X]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [-]: 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. [X]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. [X]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [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. [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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [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 do not use a name that already exist [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. Python: [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep [X]: 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. [X]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [X]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [-]: Buildroot is not present [-]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [!]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: 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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
So there is one real problem and some minor things you can ignore.
The things you can ignore are entries in the spec that are not used in rawhide, such as %clean, defattr and buildroot. Given that you are building for epel also, I think we can ignore those checks.
The real problem is the following.
The script ioflo is packaged in python-ioflo, but the shebang of the script is /usr/bin/python3, so that python3 is required by python-ioflo (which is wrong).
I have had this problem also, the python installer writes in the shebang the path to the python binary with the higher version, so it will write python3 there independently of the order in which you install python2 and python3 versions.
My recipe for this (perhaps there is a better solution) is to add the following after you install python2 and python3 versions.
%if 0%{?with_python3} sed -i '1s|^#!%{__python3}|#!%{__python2}|' %{buildroot}/usr/bin/ioflo %endif # with_python3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113328
Sergio Pascual sergio.pasra@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |erik@saltstack.com Flags| |needinfo?(erik@saltstack.co | |m)
--- Comment #15 from Sergio Pascual sergio.pasra@gmail.com --- Any progress with this? The review is very close to completion...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113328
Erik Johnson erik@saltstack.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(erik@saltstack.co | |m) |
--- Comment #16 from Erik Johnson erik@saltstack.com --- Sorry for the delay on this, I have a lot of responsibilities at work and this wasn't as high of a priority.
I implemented the fix you mentioned above and was able to confirm via rpm -qpR that the python2 package no longer deps on /usr/bin/python3. Updated spec and SRPM below.
SPEC: https://terminalmage.fedorapeople.org/pkg_review/python-ioflo.spec SRPM: https://terminalmage.fedorapeople.org/pkg_review/python-ioflo-1.0.2-2.el5.sr...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113328
--- Comment #17 from Sergio Pascual sergio.pasra@gmail.com --- Hi, now I overlooked your changes, I'm sorry.
If you are still interested:
* There is a new version 1.5 * There are a few changes in the guidelines (basically macro changes):
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113328
--- Comment #18 from Sergio Pascual sergio.pasra@gmail.com --- As per
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
a response is needed in one week or the review will be closed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113328
Erik Johnson erik@saltstack.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed| |2016-09-06 15:28:44
--- Comment #19 from Erik Johnson erik@saltstack.com --- This is no longer a priority to get packaged, I will close it.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla