[Bug 1730699] New: Review Request: copr-messaging - Abstraction for Copr messaging listeners/publishers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1730699
Bug ID: 1730699 Summary: Review Request: copr-messaging - Abstraction for Copr messaging listeners/publishers Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: schlupov@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/@copr/copr/fedora-29-ppc64le... SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/@copr/copr/fedora-29-ppc64le... Description: Schemas for messages sent by Copr project, as described on fedora-messaging documentation page https://fedora-messaging.readthedocs.io/en/latest/messages.html#schema. The package also provides several convenience methods for working with copr messages. Fedora Account System Username: schlupov
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1730699
Silvie Chlupova schlupov@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1730699
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - Your Py 3 subpackage should contain the Python provide macro:
%package -n python3-%name Summary: %summary Provides: %name = %version %{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{name}}
See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_the_pytho...
- You must install the LICENSE file with %license in %files
%files -n python3-%name %license LICENSE
- You should include the README.md file as well with %doc
%files -n python3-%name %license LICENSE %doc README.md
- There are Sphinx docs provided: build them and install them with %doc
BuildRequires: python3-sphinx
[…]
# generate html docs PYTHONPATH=${PWD} sphinx-build-3 docs html # remove the sphinx-build leftovers rm -rf html/.{doctrees,buildinfo}
[…]
%files -n python3-%name %license LICENSE %doc README.md html
- Add your own changelog entry with your name and email
* Wed Jul 17 2019 Silvie Chlupova schlupov@redhat.com - 0.1-1 - Initial package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1730699
Pavel Raiskup praiskup@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |praiskup@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |praiskup@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1730699
Pavel Raiskup praiskup@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1730699
--- Comment #2 from Silvie Chlupova schlupov@redhat.com --- I made some changes in the spec file, here is new spec and srpm.
Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/@copr/copr/fedora-29-i386/00... SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/@copr/copr/fedora-29-i386/00...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1730699
--- Comment #3 from Pavel Raiskup praiskup@redhat.com --- Can you please package the v0.2 tarball?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1730699
--- Comment #4 from Silvie Chlupova schlupov@redhat.com --- New urls without hash.
Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/@copr/copr-dev/fedora-29-ppc... SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/@copr/copr-dev/fedora-29-ppc...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1730699
--- Comment #5 from Silvie Chlupova schlupov@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://schlupov.fedorapeople.org/copr-messaging.spec SRPM URL: https://schlupov.fedorapeople.org/copr-messaging-0.3-1.fc30.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1730699
Miroslav Suchý msuchy@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
--- Comment #6 from Miroslav Suchý msuchy@redhat.com --- I sponsored Silvie.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1730699
Pavel Raiskup praiskup@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Pavel Raiskup praiskup@redhat.com --- Few innocent macros in comments, by my fault in PR#873. We'll fix this before next release. Looks good to me, approved.
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", "GPL (v2 or later)". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/1730699-copr- messaging/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. [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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [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 python3-copr-messaging [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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]: 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: python3-copr-messaging-0.3-1.fc31.noarch.rpm python3-copr-messaging-doc-0.3-1.fc31.noarch.rpm copr-messaging-0.3-1.fc31.src.rpm python3-copr-messaging.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Schemas -> Schema, Sachems, Schemes python3-copr-messaging-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Schemas -> Schema, Sachems, Schemes copr-messaging.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Schemas -> Schema, Sachems, Schemes copr-messaging.src:18: W: macro-in-comment %url copr-messaging.src:19: W: macro-in-comment %name copr-messaging.src:19: W: macro-in-comment %version copr-messaging.src:19: W: macro-in-comment %release copr-messaging.src: E: specfile-error warning: Macro expanded in comment on line 18: %url && cd copr copr-messaging.src: E: specfile-error copr-messaging.src: E: specfile-error warning: Macro expanded in comment on line 19: %name-%version-%release copr-messaging.src: E: specfile-error copr-messaging.src: E: specfile-error warning: Macro expanded in comment on line 18: %url && cd copr copr-messaging.src: E: specfile-error copr-messaging.src: E: specfile-error warning: Macro expanded in comment on line 19: %name-%version-%release 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 7 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8", LANG = "en_US.UTF-8" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8", LANG = "en_US.UTF-8" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). python3-copr-messaging-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Schemas -> Schema, Sachems, Schemes python3-copr-messaging-doc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://pagure.io/copr/copr <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> python3-copr-messaging.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Schemas -> Schema, Sachems, Schemes python3-copr-messaging.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://pagure.io/copr/copr <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1730699
--- Comment #8 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/copr-messaging
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1730699
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2019-de27a555ae has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-de27a555ae
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1730699
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2019-d7078f7833 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-d7078f7833
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1730699
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- copr-messaging-0.3-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-de27a555ae
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1730699
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- copr-messaging-0.3-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-d7078f7833
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1730699
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2019-08-07 01:44:33
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- copr-messaging-0.3-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1730699
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- copr-messaging-0.3-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com