Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: python26-setuptools - the "Distribute" fork of setuptools for the python26 EPEL5 package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=574506
Summary: Review Request: python26-setuptools - the "Distribute" fork of setuptools for the python26 EPEL5 package Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: dmalcolm@redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: ---
Spec URL: http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/epel-packaging/python26-setuptools.spec
SRPM URL: http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/epel-packaging/python26-setuptools-0.6.10-1...
Note: this is purely intended for the EPEL5 branch, not for Fedora
Description:
This is a python26-setuptools to go with python26 in EPEL5. I haven't been as conservative as I could, as this is the latest F-13 version of python-setuptools, with the Python 3 support removed, and with some ideas taken from the IUS python26-setuptools.
It is a rebase to the "distribute" fork of setuptools.
I haven't split out a separate -devel subpackage, as in the python26 build (see bug 573151) the files needed at runtime by easy_install are in the core "python26" subpackage, rather than "python26-devel"
If desired, I could instead be more conservative and simply reuse the python26-setuptools from IUS.
It contains the .pyc fix referred to in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=573151#c9
I wasn't able to scratch build in Koji, as it needs python26 ("No Package Found for python26-devel"); is this doable with chain builds?
The rpmlint output is clean, apart from this warning (due to the dist tag): python26-setuptools.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.6.10-1 0.6.10-1.el5
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=574506
Dave Malcolm dmalcolm@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |573151
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=574506
BJ Dierkes wdierkes@rackspace.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |wdierkes@rackspace.com
--- Comment #1 from BJ Dierkes wdierkes@rackspace.com 2010-03-17 13:24:18 EDT --- Why not package as 'python26-distribute' which 'Provides: python26-setuptools'?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=574506
--- Comment #2 from Dave Malcolm dmalcolm@redhat.com 2010-03-17 14:05:32 EDT --- My bad: this package doesn't actually install :(
I missed the move of easy_install to easy_install-2.6, which meant that it shadowed the version from the main stack.
Updated specfile: http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/epel-packaging/python26-setuptools.spec
Updated SRPM: http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/epel-packaging/python26-setuptools-0.6.10-2...
Diff of specfile: http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/epel-packaging/from-0.6.10-1-to-0.6.10-2.di...
Fixes the shadowing issue; rpmlint output is as before
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=574506
--- Comment #3 from Dave Malcolm dmalcolm@redhat.com 2010-03-17 14:06:41 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1)
Why not package as 'python26-distribute' which 'Provides: python26-setuptools'?
OK. I was following what Fedora 13 did here.
Is the rebase acceptable, or would you prefer a most conservative approach?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=574506
--- Comment #4 from Dave Malcolm dmalcolm@redhat.com 2010-03-17 14:07:32 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3)
Is the rebase acceptable, or would you prefer a most conservative approach?
s/most/more , I meant to write
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=574506
Dave Malcolm dmalcolm@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |574531
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=574506
--- Comment #5 from BJ Dierkes wdierkes@rackspace.com 2010-03-17 14:56:08 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3)
(In reply to comment #1)
Why not package as 'python26-distribute' which 'Provides: python26-setuptools'?
OK. I was following what Fedora 13 did here.
Is the rebase acceptable, or would you prefer a most conservative approach?
Hmm... wonder why they did it that way. Functionality is the important thing... though it seems confusing to me... most users would assume that python26-setuptools means setuptools... not distribute. Maybe there was some reason why they did it that way that I'm missing. Maybe your reviewer can comment.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=574506
Dave Malcolm dmalcolm@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |574545
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=574506
Dave Malcolm dmalcolm@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |python26-setuptools - the |python26-distribute - the |"Distribute" fork of |"Distribute" fork of |setuptools for the python26 |setuptools for the python26 |EPEL5 package |EPEL5 package
--- Comment #6 from Dave Malcolm dmalcolm@redhat.com 2010-03-19 15:10:12 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) This was taken from python-setuptools.spec in Fedora, which is so named because until recently it _was_ setuptools.
I've reworked this to be "python26-distribute" in order to be more explicit that we're using the "Distribute" fork. I'm renaming this review request accordingly.
Updated specfile: http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/epel-packaging/python26-distribute.spec
Updated SRPM: http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/epel-packaging/python26-distribute-0.6.10-3...
Difference between specfiles (since comment #2): http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/epel-packaging/from-python26-setuptools-0.6...
rpmlint output is as in comment #0: python26-distribute.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.6.10-3 0.6.10-3.el5
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=574506
Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |steve.traylen@cern.ch AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |steve.traylen@cern.ch Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #7 from Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch 2010-04-23 16:20:21 EDT --- Review: python26-distribute. Date:
* PASS: rpmlint output $ rpmlint SPECS/python26-distribute.spec \ SRPMS/python26-distribute-0.6.10-3.el5.src.rpm \ RPMS/noarch/python26-distribute-0.6.10-3.el5.noarch.rpm \ python26-distribute.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.6.10-3 0.6.10-3.el5 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
* PASS: Named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. python26-<tarballname> * PASS: spec file name same as base package %{name}. * PASS: Packaging Guidelines. * PASS: Approved license in .spec file. Python or ZPLv2.0 * PASS: License on Source code. zpl.txt and psfl.txt * PASS: Include LICENSE file or similar if it exist. zpl.txt and psfl.txt * PASS: Written in American English. * PASS: Spec file legible. * PASS: Included source must match upstream source. $ md5sum distribute-0.6.10.tar.gz ../SOURCES/distribute-0.6.10.tar.gz 99fb4b3e4ef0861bba11aa1905e89fed distribute-0.6.10.tar.gz 99fb4b3e4ef0861bba11aa1905e89fed ../SOURCES/distribute-0.6.10.tar.gz * PASS: Build on one architecture. * PASS: Not building on an architecture must highlighted. * PASS: Build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. * PASS: Handle locales properly. no locales * PASS: ldconfig must be called on shared libs. no libs * PASS: No bundled copies of system libraries. none present * PASS: Package must state why relocatable if relocatable. not relocatalbe. * PASS: A package must own all directories that it creates * PASS: No duplicate files in %files listings. None * PASS: Permissions on files must be set properly. %defattr %defatt present, * PASS: %clean section contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). Present * FAIL: Each package must consistently use macros. See below * PASS: The package must contain code, or permissable content. * PASS: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. No large docs * PASS: %doc must not affect the runtime of the application. * PASS: Header files must be in a -devel package. No headers * PASS: Static libraries must be in a -static package. No libs * PASS: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' None * PASS: Then library files that end in .so None * PASS: devel packages must require the exact base package None * PASS: No .la libtool archives None * PASS: GUI apps should have %{name}.desktop file No Gui * PASS: No files or directories already owned by other packages. None * PASS: %install must run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). It does * PASS: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. They are.
Summary: Just one things.
The .spec file uses both {buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT which it should not. On a similar but less important you want to replace $RPM_OPT_FLAGS with %{optflags}
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=574506
--- Comment #8 from Dave Malcolm dmalcolm@redhat.com 2010-04-24 12:52:19 EDT --- Thanks for looking at this.
Updated specfile: http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/epel-packaging/python26-distribute.spec
Updated SRPM: http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/epel-packaging/python26-distribute-0.6.10-4...
Difference between specfiles (since comment #6): http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/epel-packaging/python26-distribute-from-0.6...
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=574506
Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch 2010-04-24 17:55:18 EDT --- APPROVED
this should open up a lot more.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=574506
Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |585598
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=574506
Dave Malcolm dmalcolm@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #10 from Dave Malcolm dmalcolm@redhat.com 2010-04-25 15:36:37 EDT --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: python26-distribute Short Description: the "Distribute" fork of setuptools for the python26 EPEL package Owners: dmalcolm Branches: EL-5 InitialCC:
Note: this package is intended purely for EPEL, not for Fedora.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=574506
--- Comment #11 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2010-04-25 23:39:17 EDT --- CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=574506
--- Comment #12 from Dave Malcolm dmalcolm@redhat.com 2010-04-26 15:00:00 EDT --- Thanks
I've added a "dead.package" to the devel branch:
http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/python26-distribute/devel/dead.pack...
I've imported the src.rpm to the EL-5 branch http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/python26-distribute/EL-5/
pkgdb shows the package here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/python26-distribute
Can't build it in Koji until python26 reaches the buildroots: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=2139067&name=root.log shows: "No Package Found for python26-devel" (see http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python26-2.6.5-3.el5 )
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=574506
--- Comment #13 from Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch 2010-04-26 15:12:14 EDT ---
Can't build it in Koji until python26 reaches the buildroots: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=2139067&name=root.log shows: "No Package Found for python26-devel" (see http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python26-2.6.5-3.el5 )
If you like you can request a build override via a ticket to
https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/
category EPEL.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=574506
Bug 574506 depends on bug 573151, which changed state.
Bug 573151 Summary: Review Request: python26 - Parallel-installable Python 2.6 for EPEL5 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=573151
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution| |ERRATA
--- Comment #14 from Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch 2010-05-19 14:32:34 EDT --- Hi, Can this be built now?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=574506
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-06-01 15:55:46 EDT --- python26-distribute-0.6.10-4.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python26-distribute-0.6.10-4.el5
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=574506
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-06-08 17:40:13 EDT --- python26-distribute-0.6.10-4.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=574506
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |python26-distribute-0.6.10- | |4.el5 Resolution| |ERRATA
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org