https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307271
Bug ID: 1307271 Summary: Review Request: vswm - Very Simple Wireless Manager Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dmelo87@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://23.21.222.16/vswm.spec SRPM URL: http://23.21.222.16/vswm-0.2-0.fc22.src.rpm Description: vswm - Very Simple Wireless Manager - allow simple control over the wireless interface. In contrast with NetworkManager, that automate a great deal of the process, vswm will simply connect your wireless interface to the first network that is both available during scanning and present on the config file. Fedora Account System Username: dmelo Koji URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12964436 GitHub URL: https://github.com/dmelo/vswm
This is my first package. I need a sponsor.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307271
Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ppisar@redhat.com 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=1307271
Raphael Groner projects.rg@smart.ms changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |projects.rg@smart.ms Whiteboard| |Trivial
--- Comment #1 from Raphael Groner projects.rg@smart.ms --- Interested in doing some comments to other review requests? Well, I'm packaging mono stuff, would that be okay for you?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307271
--- Comment #2 from Raphael Groner projects.rg@smart.ms --- + You can remove those lines cause deprecated/obselete:
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%clean
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
+ Release is wrong, better start with 1 instead of 0 and use %{?_dist}:
Release: 1%{?_dist}
+ Please fill in a description text for %description.
+ Properly use macros where possible. E.g. %{_bindir} instead of /usr/bin.
+ Use "cp -p" to preserve timestamps. Alternatively you can use install: install -D vswm -t $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_bindir}
+ Make manpages more generic:
%{_mandir}/man8/vswm.8*
+ Changelog has wrong format, mind the dash:
* Tue Sep 08 2015 Diogo Oliveira de Melo <dmelo87(at)gmail.com> - 0.1-0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307271
Giovanni dacav@openmailbox.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dacav@openmailbox.org
--- Comment #3 from Giovanni dacav@openmailbox.org --- At current date, spec and srpm cannot be retrieved.
Trying to retrieve spec:
Error 1. Msg: Failed requesting URL https://api.github.com/repos/23/vswm.spec/contents/
Trying to retrieve src.rpm:
Error 1. Msg: Failed requesting URL https://api.github.com/repos/23/vswm-0.2-0.fc22.src.rpm/contents/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307271
--- Comment #4 from Diogo Melo dmelo87@gmail.com --- Hi Raphael and Giovanni,
I'm truly sorry about the delay. For some reason, my emails were going to promotion tab.
Regarding the broken URLs. Here are the new URLs:
Spec URL: http://amuzi.me/vswm.spec SRPM URL: http://amuzi.me/vswm-0.2-0.fc22.src.rpm
I'm working on the suggested changes. I will submit it ASAP.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307271
--- Comment #5 from Giovanni dacav@openmailbox.org --- Hello Diogo
I've been looking at your spec file, and here I've got a couple of comments to add up.
1) The name of the downloaded tarball (or zip) from github can be specified by using this nice trick:
Your URL is: https://github.com/dmelo/vswm/archive/%%7Bversion%7D.zip You can specify: https://github.com/dmelo/vswm/archive/%%7Bversion%7D.zip#/%%7Bmodule%7D-%%7B...
2) Hard wired filesystem locations should be avoided as suggested by Raphael. I've found this set of macros which you might find useful:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:RPMMacros
3) The "install" command is suggested for the creation of directories (`install -d`) and for the insertion of files (`install vswm $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}`)
Cheers :)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307271
--- Comment #6 from Diogo Melo dmelo87@gmail.com --- Hi. Thank you for the reviews. I have made various fixes based on the comments. The changed the spec file and the regenerated the SRPM are in the following URLs:
Spec URL: http://amuzi.me/vswm.spec SRPM URL: http://amuzi.me/vswm-0.4-1.fc23.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307271
--- Comment #7 from Giovanni dacav@openmailbox.org --- Hi Diogo,
The files seem to be unreachable again. May I suggest you to use Copr instead? ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Copr ).
Btw, if you want to follow my advice, I suggest to load Copr with your SRPM (I wasn't able to do otherwise for my own projects, then I realized that SRMPs work fine).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307271
--- Comment #8 from Diogo Melo dmelo87@gmail.com --- Hi Giovanni. The links are working again.
I also have just uploaded my SRPM into Copr https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/dmelo/VSWM/build/446947/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307271
--- Comment #9 from Giovanni dacav@openmailbox.org --- Hi Diogo,
Sorry for the delay, I'm quite busy those days. Anyway, I've got some comments for you:
1) The license of your package is AGPL3+, while the SPEC file claims GPLv3. This is probably useful:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing
Also the configuration file upstream seems to be licensed with GPL3.
Out of curiosity, any particular reason why you decided for Affero? This is not a web application…
2) Python has some specific guidelines which you should follow: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
- The %build section is missing (rpmlint is giving you a warning for this).
- Your script should use a she-bang without env, e.g. #!/usr/bin/python2
- "BuildRequires: python2-devel" is needed. I was wondering if this also holds here, since you don't have a setup.py. I've verified it does by asking in #fedora-python.
- You shouldn't "Requires: python" directly
- Would it be possible to use python3 instead of python2?
I've still to go through the whole document, so there could be more details to care about.
3) According to what I see in the following link, the changelog entries apparently separate the email from the version with a dash. I'm not really sure this is a problem (rpmlint is not complaining about this), so this is probably not important.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#...
A non-packager related point: the code is not doing any error checking. I suggest you to run subcommands with the `subprocess` module so you can conveniently check the outcome of the subprocess execution.
Cheers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307271
--- Comment #10 from Diogo Melo dmelo87@gmail.com --- Hi Giovanni. Thank you for the review. I'm looking into it. I will get back as soon as possible.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307271
--- Comment #11 from Diogo Melo dmelo87@gmail.com --- Hi.
About the license, it was my mistake. The intended license was GPLv3.
Regarding building it for python2 and/or python3, I've seen that from fc22 forward, for python executables, it is advisable to build it for python3 and, if possible, python2 too. I've decided to build it only for python3. I've replaced '#!/usr/bin/env python2' with '#!/usr/bin/python3'.
The spec file is now on GitHub https://github.com/dmelo/vswm/blob/master/distros/fedora/vswm.spec
Here is the Copr URL for the new version https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/dmelo/VSWM/build/454419/
I will now work on error handling, as you suggested.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307271
Raphael Groner projects.rg@smart.ms changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |projects.rg@smart.ms
--- Comment #12 from Raphael Groner projects.rg@smart.ms --- You must provide proper links to the SPEC file in raw format and the source rpm. For the SPEC file on GitHub, you can do so with: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dmelo/vswm/master/distros/fedora/vswm.spec
As said, please also provide a link to a source rpm, otherwise our fedora-review tool fails.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla