https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1952329
Bug ID: 1952329 Summary: Review Request: src - Simple Revision Control Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: bob.hepple@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/src/fedora-rawhide-x8...
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/src/fedora-rawhide-x8...
Description:
Simple Revision Control is RCS reloaded with a modern UI, designed to manage single-file solo projects kept more than one to a directory. Has a modern, svn/hg/git-like UI
Fedora Account System Username: wef
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1952329
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |code@musicinmybrain.net Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |code@musicinmybrain.net Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1952329
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(bob.hepple@gmail. | |com)
--- Comment #1 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== ISSUES =====
- Should have
Requires: git-core
for “git config --get …” in fast_export_method() and “git rev-parse HEAD” in version_method().
- Instead of src-prefix.patch, just change
%make_install
to
%make_install prefix=%{_prefix}
- Instead of src-python-version.patch, just add
%py3_shebang_fix src
to %prep after %autosetup. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_macros.
- Change
Requires: python3 >= 3.3
to
Requires: python3
because
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_package_dependen... says:
Versioned dependencies (build-time or runtime) SHOULD ONLY be used when actually necessary to guarantee that the proper version of a package is present. If a versioned dependency would be satisfied by a version present in three previous Fedora releases then the then a versioned dependency is not needed and a regular unversioned dependency SHOULD be used instead.
- I don’t see any good reason not to run the tests. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_test_suites.
Add:
BuildRequires: rcs BuildRequires: git-core
and:
# Redirecting and capturing stderr keeps the test script from detecting the # terminal size, which affects the output and can cause failures. result="$(./srctest -b rcs -p %{python3} 2>&1)" echo "${result}"
Note that upstream also runs the tests with the scss backend, which will not be available, and with Python 2, which will not be supported; so you must run the srctest script manually rather than relying on “make check”.
Capturing the output first and then echoing it rather than, say, piping through cat ensures that test failues will still stop the build, while still preventing the test process from detecting the terminal dimensions.
Next, to fix the failing “fast-export roundtrip” test, backport upstream commit 1bbebb4a34a4d76a769fe4d70ed735af599add71, like:
# Backport upstream commit 1bbebb4a34a4d76a769fe4d70ed735af599add71: # # Stop issuing branch-tip resets when fast-exporting. # # At some point git-fast-export stopped issuing branch-tip resets. # Synchronize with it. # # Fixes test failure: # --- Expected # +++ Actual # @@ -45,6 +45,3 @@ # from :4 # M 100644 :5 testfile1 # # -reset refs/heads/master # -from :6 # - # srctest (/usr/bin/python3 rcs): fast-export roundtrip: filename failed' Patch0: src-1.28-backport-1bbebb4a.patch
You can easily make this patch yourself but I will upload mine for convenience.
Now we get:
srctest (/usr/bin/python3 rcs): author date from RFC 822 header succeeded src: execution of '''git config --get user.name''' failed: Command '''git config --get user.name''' returned non-zero exit status 1. 1,2d0 < author Eric Sunshine sunshine@sunshineco.com 1509732768 -0500 < committer Roy G. Biv spectrum@color.com 1511228715 +0000 srctest (/usr/bin/python3 rcs): fast-export: consult RFC 822 headers failed' error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.xBsqsA (%check)
which is because the tests implicitly expect git author information to be configured. Since we don’t want to mess with the real user’s home-directory files in the RPM scripts, we can use environment variables to work around this; see https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-Internals-Environment-Variables.
%check # We must provide a valid git user configuration for the tests to pass. mkdir git-home cat > git-home/.gitconfig <<'EOF' [user] name = Bogus Example email = bogus@example.com EOF # Redirecting and capturing stderr keeps the test script from detecting the # terminal size, which affects the output and can cause failures. result="$(HOME="${PWD}/git-home" ./srctest -b rcs -p %{python3} -t 2>&1)" echo "${result}"
Voilà, working tests.
===== 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: "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "Unknown or generated". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/1952329-src/licensecheck.txt [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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
Should have
Requires: git-core
for “git config --get …” in fast_export_method() and “git rev-parse HEAD” in version_method().
[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 51200 bytes in 3 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
(except as otherwise noted)
[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
===== 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).
See previous comment regarding git-core.
[x]: Package functions as described. [x]: 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.
See issues; existing patches can be replaced with simple spec file additions that do not require separate justification.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Let’s fix this.
[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]: 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: [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: src-1.28-1.fc35.noarch.rpm src-1.28-1.fc35.src.rpm src.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US svn -> sen, sin, son src.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hg -> Hg, jg, hf src.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US svn -> sen, sin, son src.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hg -> Hg, jg, hf 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- src.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US svn -> sen, sin, son src.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hg -> Hg, jg, hf 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.com/esr/src/-/archive/1.28/src-1.28.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e0517114393662f6efdc7ede27328c198730062434a42dede38b6347a36e440c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e0517114393662f6efdc7ede27328c198730062434a42dede38b6347a36e440c
Requires -------- src (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python3 rcs
Provides -------- src: src
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1952329 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, Perl, Ruby, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, R, fonts, Python, Java, C/C++ Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1952329
--- Comment #2 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- Created attachment 1777228 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1777228&action=edit Backported patch referenced in review feedback
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1952329
--- Comment #3 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net ---
result="$(HOME="${PWD}/git-home" ./srctest -b rcs -p %{python3} -t 2>&1)"
Oops; I had added “-t” for debugging, which uses a hard-coded /tmp/srctest directory that it does not clean up. I don’t think you should use “-t” in the real spec file.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1952329
--- Comment #4 from Bob Hepple bob.hepple@gmail.com --- Hi Ben,
Firstly thanks for the detailed review, much appreciated.
Secondly, apologies for the delay - I've had surgery etc but that's another story.
I hope to get back to it this coming week, in the meantime a question about 'Requires: git-core'
git is not needed for most core operations in 'src', just for the fairly exotic git import and export operations. If git is not installed, we get the error message:
$ src fast-export tamborine.org /bin/sh: git: command not found src: execution of 'git config --get user.name' failed: Command 'git config --get user.name' returned non-zero exit status 127.
... the remedy for which is pretty clear.
Would this be a case for a hint such as 'Suggests: git-core' instead?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1952329
--- Comment #5 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net ---
Secondly, apologies for the delay - I've had surgery etc but that's another story.
I’m not in a hurry! :-) Best wishes on your recovery.
git is not needed for most core operations in 'src', just for the fairly exotic git import and export operations. […] Would this be a case for a hint such as 'Suggests: git-core' instead?
If the parts that use git are not essential functionality, and it degrades gracefully, as you noted, then I think it would be a good fit for a weak dependency (Recommends:). That way git-core is installed by default but people wanting minimal installations can use “dnf --setopt=install_weak_deps=False” to avoid it. Fedora suggests weak dependencies for, e.g., “Plug-ins or add-ons (Support for file formats, Support for protocols, …)” (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/WeakDependencies/#...), which is pretty close to this case.
Looking at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/WeakDependencies/#..., it’s not clear if Fedora exactly forbids using a hint here (is this part of “the main use cases of a package”)? But in practice a hint does very little for users. I think a weak dependency is more useful and more consistent with how weak dependencies and hints are used in the rest of the distribution.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1952329
Bob Hepple bob.hepple@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(bob.hepple@gmail. | |com) |
--- Comment #6 from Bob Hepple bob.hepple@gmail.com --- New build incorporating review comments:
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/src/fedora-rawhide-x8... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/src/fedora-rawhide-x8...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1952329
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- Looks great! Package approved.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== 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: "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "Unknown or generated". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/1952329-src/re-review/1952329-src/licensecheck.txt [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 51200 bytes in 3 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
===== 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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]: 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: [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: src-1.28-2.fc35.noarch.rpm src-1.28-2.fc35.src.rpm src.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US svn -> sen, sin, son src.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hg -> Hg, jg, hf src.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US svn -> sen, sin, son src.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hg -> Hg, jg, hf 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- src.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US svn -> sen, sin, son src.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hg -> Hg, jg, hf 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.com/esr/src/-/archive/1.28/src-1.28.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e0517114393662f6efdc7ede27328c198730062434a42dede38b6347a36e440c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e0517114393662f6efdc7ede27328c198730062434a42dede38b6347a36e440c
Requires -------- src (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python3 rcs
Provides -------- src: src
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1952329 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, C/C++, Haskell, Java, SugarActivity, PHP, Perl, Ruby, Ocaml, Python, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1952329
--- Comment #8 from Tomas Hrcka thrcka@redhat.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/src
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1952329
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-a80b22ad6b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-a80b22ad6b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1952329
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-5ffe2d0f40 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-5ffe2d0f40
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1952329
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-5ffe2d0f40 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-5ffe2d0f40 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-5ffe2d0f40
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1952329
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-a80b22ad6b has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-a80b22ad6b *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-a80b22ad6b
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1952329
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2021-05-14 17:49:33
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-5ffe2d0f40 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1952329
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-a80b22ad6b has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com