[Bug 1262965] New: Review Request: python-setuptoos_scm - The blessed package to manage your versions by scm tags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262965
Bug ID: 1262965 Summary: Review Request: python-setuptoos_scm - The blessed package to manage your versions by scm tags Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: orion@cora.nwra.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python-setuptools_scm.spec SRPM URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python-setuptools_scm-1.7.0-1.fc24.sr... Description: Setuptools_scm handles managing your python package versions in scm metadata. It also handles file finders for the suppertes scms.
Fedora Account System Username: orion
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262965
Ilya Gradina ilya.gradina@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ilya.gradina@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Ilya Gradina ilya.gradina@gmail.com --- This is an unofficial review of the package. some notes: 1) not latest version is packaged. ( 1.8.0 ) 2) license - MIT ( https://pypi.python.org/pypi/setuptools_scm )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ilgrad/1262965-python- setuptools_scm/licensecheck.txt [x]: 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. [ ]: 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 40960 bytes in 4 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: [ ]: 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]: 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). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2-setuptools_scm , python3-setuptools_scm [ ]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python2-setuptools_scm.noarch: W: invalid-license Check python3-setuptools_scm.noarch: W: invalid-license Check 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ilgrad/1262965-python-setuptools_scm/srpm/python-setuptools_scm.spec 2015-09-19 13:59:22.689165165 +0300 +++ /home/ilgrad/1262965-python-setuptools_scm/srpm-unpacked/python-setuptools_scm.spec 2015-09-14 21:50:27.000000000 +0300 @@ -1,6 +1,2 @@ -%if 0%{?fedora} -%global with_python3 1 -%endif - %global srcname setuptools_scm %global sum The blessed package to manage your versions by scm tags @@ -11,11 +7,12 @@ Summary: %{sum}
-License: MIT +License: Check URL: http://pypi.python.org/pypi/%%7Bsrcname%7D Source0: http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/s/%%7Bsrcname%7D/%%7Bsrcname%7D-%%7Bv...
BuildArch: noarch -BuildRequires: python2-devel +BuildRequires: python2-devel python3-devel BuildRequires: pytest +BuildRequires: python3-pytest # For tests BuildRequires: git-core @@ -35,9 +32,6 @@
-%if 0%{?with_python3} %package -n python3-%{srcname} Summary: %{sum} -BuildRequires: python3-devel -BuildRequires: python3-pytest %{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{srcname}}
@@ -45,5 +39,4 @@ Setuptools_scm handles managing your python package versions in scm metadata. It also handles file finders for the suppertes scms. -%endif
@@ -53,7 +46,5 @@ %build %py2_build -%if 0%{?with_python3} %py3_build -%endif
%install @@ -62,13 +53,9 @@ # python3 version to be the default. %py2_install -%if 0%{?with_python3} %py3_install -%endif
%check PYTHONPATH=%{buildroot}%{python2_sitelib} py.test-%{python2_version} -vv -%if 0%{?with_python3} PYTHONPATH=%{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib} py.test-%{python3_version} -vv -%endif
%files -n python2-%{srcname} @@ -77,10 +64,8 @@ %{python2_sitelib}/*
-%if 0%{?with_python3} %files -n python3-%{srcname} %license LICENSE %doc CHANGELOG.rst README.rst %{python3_sitelib}/* -%endif
%changelog
Requires -------- python2-setuptools_scm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi)
python3-setuptools_scm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi)
Provides -------- python2-setuptools_scm: python-setuptools_scm python2-setuptools_scm
python3-setuptools_scm: python3-setuptools_scm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262965
--- Comment #2 from Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com --- Thanks.
* Sat Sep 19 2015 Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com - 1.8.0-1 - Update to 1.8.0 - Fix license tag
Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python-setuptools_scm.spec SRPM URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python-setuptools_scm-1.8.0-1.fc22.sr...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262965
--- Comment #3 from Ilya Gradina ilya.gradina@gmail.com --- some notes: 1) ............ python-setuptools_scm.src:10: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 10, tab: line 4) ..........., 2) .......... python3-setuptools_scm.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/setuptools_scm/utils.pyc expected 3310 (3.4), found 62211 (2.7) python3-setuptools_scm.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/setuptools_scm/version.pyc expected 3310 (3.4), found 62211 (2.7) python3-setuptools_scm.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/setuptools_scm/__init__.pyc expected 3310 (3.4), found 62211 (2.7) python3-setuptools_scm.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/setuptools_scm/integration.pyc expected 3310 (3.4), found 62211 (2.7) python3-setuptools_scm.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/setuptools_scm/discover.pyc expected 3310 (3.4), found 62211 (2.7) python3-setuptools_scm.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/setuptools_scm/hacks.pyc expected 3310 (3.4), found 62211 (2.7) ............. --> this warning is a bug in rpmlint
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262965
--- Comment #4 from Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com --- Fixed tabs.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262965
Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |hobbes1069@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |hobbes1069@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262965
Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com --- Ok, like the other comment I found the magic value issue...
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-setuptools_scm.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/setuptools_scm/utils.pyc expected 3310 (3.4), found 62211 (2.7) python3-setuptools_scm.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/setuptools_scm/hacks.pyc expected 3310 (3.4), found 62211 (2.7) python3-setuptools_scm.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/setuptools_scm/integration.pyc expected 3310 (3.4), found 62211 (2.7) python3-setuptools_scm.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/setuptools_scm/__init__.pyc expected 3310 (3.4), found 62211 (2.7) python3-setuptools_scm.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/setuptools_scm/discover.pyc expected 3310 (3.4), found 62211 (2.7) python3-setuptools_scm.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/setuptools_scm/version.pyc expected 3310 (3.4), found 62211 (2.7) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 0 warnings. --- end ---
I looked through the build log and can't find where this is going wrong. It looks like the python2 package is being compiled with python 2.7 and the python3 package is being byte-compiled with python 3.4...
Requires -------- python2-setuptools_scm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi)
python3-setuptools_scm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi)
Should the requires have version numbers? 2.7 and 3.4 respectively?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262965
--- Comment #6 from Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com ---
Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python-setuptools_scm.spec SRPM URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python-setuptools_scm-1.8.0-2.fc22.sr...
* Mon Oct 19 2015 Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com - 1.8.0-2 - Cleanup stray .pyc files from tests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262965
Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com --- 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: "Unknown or generated". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/build/fedora-review/1262965-python- setuptools_scm/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. [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 40960 bytes in 4 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. [x]: 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: [x]: 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-setuptools_scm , python3-setuptools_scm [?]: 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. [x]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: 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: python2-setuptools_scm-1.8.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm python3-setuptools_scm-1.8.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm python-setuptools_scm-1.8.0-1.fc24.src.rpm python2-setuptools_scm.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) scm -> cm, scam, scum python2-setuptools_scm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Setuptools -> Setup tools, Setup-tools, Footstools python2-setuptools_scm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scm -> cm, scam, scum python2-setuptools_scm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal python2-setuptools_scm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US suppertes -> suppertime, supporter, superstates python2-setuptools_scm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scms -> scams, scums, sums python3-setuptools_scm.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) scm -> cm, scam, scum python3-setuptools_scm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Setuptools -> Setup tools, Setup-tools, Footstools python3-setuptools_scm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scm -> cm, scam, scum python3-setuptools_scm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal python3-setuptools_scm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US suppertes -> suppertime, supporter, superstates python3-setuptools_scm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scms -> scams, scums, sums python-setuptools_scm.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) scm -> cm, scam, scum python-setuptools_scm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Setuptools -> Setup tools, Setup-tools, Footstools python-setuptools_scm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scm -> cm, scam, scum python-setuptools_scm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal python-setuptools_scm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US suppertes -> suppertime, supporter, superstates python-setuptools_scm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scms -> scams, scums, sums 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 18 warnings.
Requires -------- python2-setuptools_scm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) = 2.7
python3-setuptools_scm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) = 3.4
Provides -------- python2-setuptools_scm: python-setuptools_scm python-setuptools_scm(x86-64) python2-setuptools_scm
python3-setuptools_scm: python3-setuptools_scm
Source checksums ---------------- http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/s/setuptools_scm/setuptools_scm-1.8.0... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ddbf365e60e5f8e3f86fe117edeee4a7e1dd8ce7a9337951c9c163e7c506e602 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ddbf365e60e5f8e3f86fe117edeee4a7e1dd8ce7a9337951c9c163e7c506e602
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.3 (bcf15e3) last change: 2015-05-04 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1262965 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
*** APPROVED ***
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262965
Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |python-setuptools_scm-1.8.0 | |-2.fc24 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2015-10-21 11:36:30
--- Comment #8 from Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com --- Checked in and built. Thanks again.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262965
Pierre-YvesChibon pingou@pingoured.fr changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pingou@pingoured.fr
--- Comment #9 from Pierre-YvesChibon pingou@pingoured.fr --- Could you try building it for epel7 since there is branch ready?
Thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262965
--- Comment #10 from Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com --- We're missing a bunch of python macros in EPEL7. I'm going see if we can remedy that quickly first...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262965
--- Comment #11 from Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com --- Actually, we're pretty close - but I'm seeing some test failures: https://github.com/pypa/setuptools_scm/issues/73
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla