[Bug 1491281] New: Review Request: python-libsass - python bindings for libsass

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491281

Bug ID: 1491281
           Summary: Review Request: python-libsass - python bindings for
                    libsass
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
         Component: Package Review
          Severity: medium
          Assignee: [e-mail]
          Reporter: [e-mail]
        QA Contact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail]

Spec URL:
https://github.com/Traceur759/python-libsass/blob/master/python-libsass.spec
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/Traceur759/python-libsass/blob/master/python-libsass-0.13...
Description: This is an RPM package for libsass python bindings.
Fedora Account System Username: dormouse

[Bug 1491281] Review Request: python-libsass - python bindings for libsass

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491281

Miro Hrončok  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
           Assignee|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]
              Flags|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #1 from Miro Hrončok  ---
Marcel needs a sponsor, so here I come :)

[Bug 1491281] Review Request: python-libsass - python bindings for libsass

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491281

--- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok  ---
1) First of all: Always post links that can be downloaded and viewed as
plaintext / SRPM. There are automated tools here that expect that.

That would be:

Spec URL:
https://github.com/Traceur759/python-libsass/raw/master/python-libsass.spec
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/Traceur759/python-libsass/raw/master/python-libsass-0.13....

2) You don't need to define a sum macro, just fill in the Summary: line and
then use %{summary} everywhere else.

3) Is suggest to drop the %{libname} macro and hardcode libsass-python in the
URL. It is convenient when one can just copy paste it form the spec. Also, you
can use %{url} in Source0:

URL:            https://github.com/dahlia/libsass-python
Source0:       
%{url}/releases/download/%{version}/%{srcname}-%{version}.tar.gz

6) This bundles libsass C/C++ library. That one is packaged in Fedora:
https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/libsass

You should make every effort to use that package instead of the bundled code in
the tarball. This might involve patching.

If you absolutely fail (e.g. because the bundled version of libsass is very
diffferent from original (probably not, they use a git submodule), than you
need to indicate bundling by providing bundled(libsass).

See more about bundling at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Bundling_and_Duplication...

5) I see you use ExclusiveArch tag. Please, add a comment that explains why is
thet necessary. Or maybe it's not necessary at all? Even the libsass C/C++
package builds for all arches in Fedora.

6) Putting each BuildRequires on a separate line makes them more maintainable.
(But current way works as well and is OK.)

7) sed "1d" -i %{buildroot}/%{python2_sitearch}/sassc.py

I guess this is for shebang? If so:

- is it possible to get rid of it once in prep?
 - can the command be chanaged to only delete the shebang if it's actually
there?

8) # Note that there is no %%files section for the unversioned python module if
we are building for several python runtimes

This is such common situation, that it might not require this comment any more.

9) README.rst is no license and should not be used with %license tag. Upstream
has a nice LICENSE file in git, maybe propose (pull request) a change to their
MANIFEST.in file to include LICENSE in the tarballs. In the meantime, this
package can live easily without the file.

Note: Somebody did this already:
https://github.com/dahlia/libsass-python/commit/a00117129e0e8a863195c378337f...

10) PKG-INFO is not documentation and does not belong to %doc

11) I see hardcoded 2.7, 3.6 and 36 in the %files section. While this might eb
Ok for 2.7, because theat will be the last version of 2, this is not Ok for
3.6. Use the following macros instead:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros

%{python3_version_nodots} for 36
%{python3_version} for 3.6
%{python2_version} for 2.7

12) %{python3_sitearch}/__pycache__/

You have this in the files section. It will make your package own the entire
directory, which is not desired, python3-libs owns that directory.

Either use:

%{python3_sitearch}/__pycache__/*

to own everything inside, or be more explicit:

%{python3_sitearch}/__pycache__/sass.*
%{python3_sitearch}/__pycache__/sassc.*
...

13) The bindir section in %files looks like it doesn't belong anywhere, where
in fact it belongs to the python3-package. I suggest moving it more top in the
files list. (But that is not a strong opinion).

Feel free to ping me on #fedora-python for more info.

[Bug 1491281] Review Request: python-libsass - python bindings for libsass

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491281

--- Comment #3 from Miro Hrončok  ---
14) why does it BuildRequire six, but not require? Is it just needed for tests?

[Bug 1491281] Review Request: python-libsass - python bindings for libsass

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491281

--- Comment #4 from Miro Hrončok  ---
15) the tests don't run:

+ /usr/bin/python2 setup.py test
running test
running egg_info
writing requirements to libsass.egg-info/requires.txt
writing libsass.egg-info/PKG-INFO
writing top-level names to libsass.egg-info/top_level.txt
writing dependency_links to libsass.egg-info/dependency_links.txt
writing entry points to libsass.egg-info/entry_points.txt
reading manifest file 'libsass.egg-info/SOURCES.txt'
reading manifest template 'MANIFEST.in'
warning: no files found matching '*.c' under directory 'libsass'
warning: no files found matching '*.cpp' under directory 'libsass'
warning: no files found matching '*.h' under directory 'libsass'
warning: no files found matching '*.hpp' under directory 'libsass'
warning: no files found matching 'libsass/Makefile'
writing manifest file 'libsass.egg-info/SOURCES.txt'
running build_ext
copying build/lib.linux-x86_64-2.7/_sass.so ->

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ran 0 tests in 0.000s

OK
+ /usr/bin/python3 setup.py test
running test
running egg_info
writing libsass.egg-info/PKG-INFO
writing dependency_links to libsass.egg-info/dependency_links.txt
writing entry points to libsass.egg-info/entry_points.txt
writing requirements to libsass.egg-info/requires.txt
writing top-level names to libsass.egg-info/top_level.txt
reading manifest file 'libsass.egg-info/SOURCES.txt'
reading manifest template 'MANIFEST.in'
warning: no files found matching '*.c' under directory 'libsass'
warning: no files found matching '*.cpp' under directory 'libsass'
warning: no files found matching '*.h' under directory 'libsass'
warning: no files found matching '*.hpp' under directory 'libsass'
warning: no files found matching 'libsass/Makefile'
writing manifest file 'libsass.egg-info/SOURCES.txt'
running build_ext
copying build/lib.linux-x86_64-3.6/_sass.cpython-36m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so ->

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ran 0 tests in 0.000s

OK

[Bug 1491281] Review Request: python-libsass - python bindings for libsass

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491281

--- Comment #5 from Miro Hrončok  ---
See https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libsass/pull-request/1

This will allow you to read the libsass version in two possible ways:

1) parse /usr/include/sass/version.h

2) write and compile a small program:

#include <stdio.h>
#include <sass/context.h>

int main() {
  puts(libsass_version());
  return 0;
}

gcc -Wall version.c -lsass -o version && ./version

[Bug 1491281] Review Request: python-libsass - python bindings for libsass

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491281

--- Comment #6 from Marcel Plch  ---
There are changes pushed to GitHub.
Basically, I went step by step and fixed what was wrong.
Everything should be alright now, even the tests run properly now.
Now, the "Source Code" tarball from
https://github.com/dahlia/libsass-python/releases is used to make a package.

[Bug 1491281] Review Request: python-libsass - python bindings for libsass

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491281

--- Comment #7 from Miro Hrončok  ---
I've commented on github commits some further tips. Could you please take those
into consideration as well?

https://github.com/Traceur759/python-libsass/commit/b86f62dd15e75ed6e05ad000...

https://github.com/Traceur759/python-libsass/commit/08121af5c74736db7f8e9dcd...

[Bug 1491281] Review Request: python-libsass - python bindings for libsass

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491281

--- Comment #8 from Miro Hrončok  ---
I've juts found out that there is a sassc (Ruby) package in Fedora that has
/usr/bin/sassc - this package cannot conflict with it.

[Bug 1491281] Review Request: python-libsass - python bindings for libsass

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491281

--- Comment #9 from Miro Hrončok  ---
Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

Issues:
=======
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
  (~1MB) or number of files.
  Note: Documentation size is 1536000 bytes in 94 files.
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation

- Package must own all directories that it creates.
  Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-
  packages/sassutils, /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-
  packages/libsass-0.13.2-py3.6.egg-info, /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-
  packages/libsass-0.13.2-py2.7.egg-info, /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-
  packages/sassutils

- Package generates a conflict with the ruby version of sassc (will be solved
  with next upstream release)

- Please add link to upstream discussion as a comment near the patches

- Please don't mix spaces and tabs (I recommend sticking with spaces)
  python-libsass.src:12: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab:
line 12)

===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. (They are not. Verified.)
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-
     packages/libsass-0.13.2-py2.7.egg-info, /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-
     packages/sassutils, /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-
     packages/libsass-0.13.2-py3.6.egg-info, /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-
     packages/sassutils
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-
     packages/sassutils, /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-
     packages/libsass-0.13.2-py3.6.egg-info, /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-
     packages/libsass-0.13.2-py2.7.egg-info, /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-
     packages/sassutils
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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.
[!]: 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.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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
[-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[-]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
     Not applicable here, just docs, it runs in one thread anyway
[-]: 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.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[?]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[ ]: 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]: 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:
[!]: 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)
[!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
     Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1556480 bytes in /usr/share
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python2-libsass-0.13.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          python3-libsass-0.13.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          python-libsass-debuginfo-0.13.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          python-libsass-0.13.2-1.fc28.src.rpm
python2-libsass.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/doc/python2-libsass/html/.buildinfo
python3-libsass.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/doc/python3-libsass/html/.buildinfo
python-libsass.src:12: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab:
line 12)
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: python-libsass-debuginfo-0.13.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
python-libsass-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
https://github.com/dahlia/libsass-python <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or
service not known>
python3-libsass.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
https://github.com/dahlia/libsass-python <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or
service not known>
python3-libsass.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/doc/python3-libsass/html/.buildinfo
python2-libsass.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
https://github.com/dahlia/libsass-python <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or
service not known>
python2-libsass.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/doc/python2-libsass/html/.buildinfo
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.

Invalid URLs is false possitive (no connection from mock)

Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
---
/home/churchyard/rpmbuild/FedoraReview/1491281-python-libsass/srpm/python-libsass.spec
   2017-10-05 16:58:37.752799878 +0200
+++
/home/churchyard/rpmbuild/FedoraReview/1491281-python-libsass/srpm-unpacked/python-libsass.spec
   2017-09-26 18:32:50.000000000 +0200
@@ -74,5 +74,5 @@
 %files -n python2-%{srcname}
 %license LICENSE
-%doc README.rst docs/_build/html/
+%doc README.rst docs/_build/html
 %{python2_sitearch}/_sass.so
 %{python2_sitearch}/libsass-0.13.2-py%{python2_version}.egg-info/*

^ Please fix this as well, but not a big deal.

Requires
--------
python-libsass-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

python3-libsass (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    libpython3.6m.so.1.0()(64bit)
    libsass.so.0()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    python(abi)
    python3-six
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

python2-libsass (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    libpython2.7.so.1.0()(64bit)
    libsass.so.0()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    python(abi)
    python2-six
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

Provides
--------
python-libsass-debuginfo:
    python-libsass-debuginfo
    python-libsass-debuginfo(x86-64)

python3-libsass:
    python3-libsass
    python3-libsass(x86-64)
    python3.6dist(libsass)
    python3dist(libsass)

python2-libsass:
    python-libsass
    python-libsass(x86-64)
    python2-libsass
    python2-libsass(x86-64)
    python2.7dist(libsass)
    python2dist(libsass)

Unversioned so-files
--------------------

(This is fine on Python)

python2-libsass: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/_sass.so
python3-libsass:
/usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/_sass.cpython-36m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/dahlia/libsass-python/archive/0.13.2.tar.gz#/libsass-0.13...
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
0d919cef7e4033f900daee2ec7dfc54b30351bc2d64a41c9eacd4028b4d25878
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
0d919cef7e4033f900daee2ec7dfc54b30351bc2d64a41c9eacd4028b4d25878

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (7737a2a) last change: 2015-11-26
Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 1491281 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, R, PHP,
Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

[Bug 1491281] Review Request: python-libsass - python bindings for libsass

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491281

--- Comment #10 from Miro Hrončok  ---
About the conflicts: Currently it doe snot conflict, but the executable is
excluded, which should be fixed anyway and it will, upstream is working on it.

[Bug 1491281] Review Request: python-libsass - python bindings for libsass

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491281

Elliott Sales de Andrade  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail],
                   |                            |[e-mail]
         Whiteboard|                            |AwaitingSubmitter
              Flags|                            |needinfo?([e-mail])

--- Comment #11 from Elliott Sales de Andrade  ---
Any updates Marcel?

[Bug 1491281] Review Request: python-libsass - python bindings for libsass

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491281

Marcel Plch  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|needinfo?([e-mail]) |

--- Comment #12 from Marcel Plch  ---
I managed to push a patch to the upstream for easier packaging.
Not much since then, I'm currently working on some matters around cpython, but
I'd like to finish this package during January.

[Bug 1491281] Review Request: python-libsass - python bindings for libsass

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491281

--- Comment #13 from Marcel Plch  ---
A new version is up.

[Bug 1491281] Review Request: python-libsass - python bindings for libsass

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491281

--- Comment #14 from Marcel Plch  ---
Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Traceur759/python-libsass/master/python-li...
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/Traceur759/python-libsass/blob/master/python-libsass-0.13...

[Bug 1491281] Review Request: python-libsass - python bindings for libsass

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491281

--- Comment #15 from Miro Hrončok  ---
Posting URLs Fedora-Review can understand.

Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Traceur759/python-libsass/master/python-li...
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/Traceur759/python-libsass/raw/master/python-libsass-0.13...."

[Bug 1491281] Review Request: python-libsass - python bindings for libsass

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491281

--- Comment #16 from Miro Hrončok  ---
I've got a build failure:

+ pushd docs
~/build/BUILD/libsass-python-0.13.4/docs ~/build/BUILD/libsass-python-0.13.4
++ python3 -c 'import sysconfig; print(sysconfig.get_platform())'
+ PLATFORM=linux-x86_64
+ export PYTHONPATH=../build/lib.linux-x86_64-3.6
+ PYTHONPATH=../build/lib.linux-x86_64-3.6
+ make man
sphinx-build -b man -d _build/doctrees   . _build/man
make: sphinx-build: Command not found
make: *** [Makefile:117: man] Error 127

You removed SPHINXBUILD=sphinx-build-3 in the last change, was there any
reason, or is it just a mistake?

[Bug 1491281] Review Request: python-libsass - python bindings for libsass

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491281

--- Comment #17 from Marcel Plch  ---
A mistake.
However, there is a new commit with a new spec with this also corrected.

Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Traceur759/python-libsass/master/python-li...
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/Traceur759/python-libsass/raw/master/python-libsass-0.13....

[Bug 1491281] Review Request: python-libsass - python bindings for libsass

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491281

--- Comment #18 from Miro Hrončok  ---
Please fix the following rpmlint issues:

python2-libsass.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/sassc.py /usr/bin/env python
python2-libsass.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/sassc.py 644 /usr/bin/env python
python3-libsass.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/sassc.py /usr/bin/env python
python3-libsass.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/sassc.py 644 /usr/bin/env python
python3-libsass.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/man/man1/pysassc.1.gz

[Bug 1491281] Review Request: python-libsass - python bindings for libsass

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491281

--- Comment #19 from Marcel Plch  ---
If anyone relies on this or is blocked by this, please, let me know. This
package is not on top of my todo list.

[Bug 1491281] Review Request: python-libsass - python bindings for libsass

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491281

--- Comment #20 from Marcel Plch  ---
A new, updated, and fixed version of the bindings is prepared.

Spec
URL:https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Traceur759/python-libsass/master/python-li...
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/Traceur759/python-libsass/raw/master/python-libsass-0.14....

[Bug 1491281] Review Request: python-libsass - python bindings for libsass

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491281

--- Comment #21 from Miro Hrončok  ---
BuildRequires:  python2-devel python2-six python2-pytest python-werkzeug
BuildRequires:  python3-devel python3-six python3-pytest python3-werkzeug

1) as a matter of style, i recommend putting each BR on new line. it's better
with diffs, commits, etc.

2) python-werkzeug -> python2-werkzeug

----

PLATFORM=...

why si this needed? maybe add a comment

-----

py.test-%{python2_version} -> py.test-2
py.test-%{python3_version} -> py.test-3

-----

%exclude %{_bindir}/sassc
%exclude %{_bindir}/sassc.py

add a comment?

-----

Also, consider not doing the python2 package at all.

[Bug 1491281] Review Request: python-libsass - python bindings for libsass

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491281

--- Comment #22 from Miro Hrončok  ---
+ /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-mangle-shebangs
*** WARNING: mangling shebang in /usr/lib64/python3.7/site-packages/sassc.py
from #!/usr/bin/env python to #!/usr/bin/python2. This will become an ERROR,
fix it manually!
*** WARNING: mangling shebang in /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/sassc.py
from #!/usr/bin/env python to #!/usr/bin/python2. This will become an ERROR,
fix it manually!

[Bug 1491281] Review Request: python-libsass - python bindings for libsass

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491281

--- Comment #23 from Marcel Plch  ---
I have updated the spec and dropped the python2 package.

[Bug 1491281] Review Request: python-libsass - python bindings for libsass

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491281

--- Comment #24 from Miro Hrončok  ---
Have you also updated the SRPM? I'd like to rebuild it in Koji.

[Bug 1491281] Review Request: python-libsass - python bindings for libsass

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491281

--- Comment #25 from Marcel Plch  ---
Done. You may now launch a rebuild.

[Bug 1491281] Review Request: python-libsass - python bindings for libsass

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491281

--- Comment #26 from Miro Hrončok  ---
+ /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-mangle-shebangs
*** WARNING: mangling shebang in /usr/lib64/python3.7/site-packages/sassc.py
from #!/usr/bin/env python to #!/usr/bin/python2. This will become an ERROR,
fix it manually!

$ rpm -qp --requires python3-libsass-0.14.5-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm 
/usr/bin/python2
...

[Bug 1491281] Review Request: python-libsass - python bindings for libsass

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491281

--- Comment #27 from Marcel Plch  ---
Spec and SRPM updated.
Shebang is fixed to /usr/bin/python3 and the package no longer requires
python2.

[Bug 1491281] Review Request: python-libsass - python bindings for libsass

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491281

--- Comment #28 from Miro Hrončok  ---
Does /usr/lib64/python3.7/site-packages/sassc.py actually need the shebang and
executable bit?

[Bug 1491281] Review Request: python-libsass - python bindings for libsass

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491281

--- Comment #29 from Marcel Plch  ---
Actually, it does not, since it's under lib64.
Sassc.py is no longer executable an no longer has a shebang.

[Bug 1491281] Review Request: python-libsass - python bindings for libsass

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491281

Miro Hrončok  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |POST
              Flags|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #30 from Miro Hrončok  ---
Package APPROVED!

[Bug 1491281] Review Request: python-libsass - python bindings for libsass

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491281

--- Comment #31 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-libsass

[Bug 1491281] Review Request: python-libsass - python bindings for libsass

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491281

--- Comment #32 from Miro Hrončok  ---
Please update this bug with recent info. A good thing would be to do one fo the
following:

- set "Fixed In Version:" to the first rawhide built and close this as RAWHIDE.

- issue updates to Fedora 28 (and maybe F27) and set this bug number in  bodhi,
so it gets autoclosed (I suspect that's not gonna happen for this package, as
it requires the libsass version from rawhide)

[Bug 1491281] Review Request: python-libsass - python bindings for libsass

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491281

Marcel Plch  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|POST                        |CLOSED
   Fixed In Version|                            |python-libsass-0.14.5-1.fc2
                   |                            |9
         Resolution|---                         |RAWHIDE
        Last Closed|                            |2018-08-01 04:20:51