[Bug 1489257] New: Review Request: distgen - Templating system/ generator for distributions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1489257
Bug ID: 1489257 Summary: Review Request: distgen - Templating system/generator for distributions Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: bkabrda@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://bkabrda.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/distgen/distgen.spec SRPM URL: https://bkabrda.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/distgen/distgen-0.14-1.fc27.src.rpm Description:
Based on given template specification (configuration for template), template file and preexisting distribution metadata generate output file.
Fedora Account System Username: bkabrda
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1489257
Tomas Tomecek ttomecek@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |ttomecek@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |ttomecek@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Tomas Tomecek ttomecek@redhat.com --- okay then...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1489257
--- Comment #2 from Tomas Tomecek ttomecek@redhat.com --- My review:
Is this the way to do shebangs with python?
``` sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory ```
Man page would be really useful (not blocking this review):
``` distgen.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dg ```
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". 134 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tt/t/review-1489257/1489257-distgen/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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 40960 bytes in 8 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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 [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: 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]: 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: distgen-0.14-1.fc27.noarch.rpm distgen-0.14-1.fc27.src.rpm distgen.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Templating -> Contemplating, Template, Tempting distgen.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal distgen.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dg distgen.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Templating -> Contemplating, Template, Tempting distgen.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory distgen.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Templating -> Contemplating, Template, Tempting distgen.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal distgen.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dg 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Requires -------- distgen (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3-PyYAML python3-jinja2 python3-six
Provides -------- distgen: distgen python3.6dist(distgen) python3dist(distgen)
Source checksums ---------------- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/devexp-db/distgen/ad60eaf35655fc1e72c391cd... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c67cc975aa47edec8a9c23ed6e876522f0b6f40116f4623650f2b8e76b4bc9e5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c67cc975aa47edec8a9c23ed6e876522f0b6f40116f4623650f2b8e76b4bc9e5 https://pypi.python.org/packages/85/67/c5eda06be88a44767ce75acda4f301f5cf210... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d9d20f7ef4f3ce1d591cbf7d306365cefc2484a30f7cdda3e7b7c52a9d2dbe22 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d9d20f7ef4f3ce1d591cbf7d306365cefc2484a30f7cdda3e7b7c52a9d2dbe22 https://raw.githubusercontent.com/devexp-db/distgen/ad60eaf35655fc1e72c391cd... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e397a072a73b22ef56291c21ecf613f1ba840344c78d57495439610bbdba3801 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e397a072a73b22ef56291c21ecf613f1ba840344c78d57495439610bbdba3801
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1489257 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1489257
--- Comment #3 from Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda bkabrda@redhat.com --- Thanks for the review, Tomas!
I managed to find out that the line "sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory" is actually a bug in rpmlint, here's my bug report for it [1].
If I have some spare time, I'll try to work on the manpage with upstream, but AFAICS there should be nothing blocking this review now that we've cleared the situation about the hashbang.
[1] https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpmlint/issues/111
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1489257
Tomas Tomecek ttomecek@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Tomas Tomecek ttomecek@redhat.com --- Yup, r+.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1489257
--- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/distgen
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1489257
Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda bkabrda@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |distgen-0.14-1.fc28 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2017-09-08 09:12:18
--- Comment #6 from Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda bkabrda@redhat.com --- Built as distgen-0.14-1.fc28
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1489257
--- Comment #7 from Igor Gnatenko ignatenko@redhat.com --- Have anyone tried to check how does this comply with python packaging guidelines?... Seems like not.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1489257
--- Comment #8 from Pavel Raiskup praiskup@redhat.com --- Anything concrete in mind? I checked that briefly.
This package is mostly about /bin/dg script, which is built against single python runtime. This is not (at this moment) python module so we don't have python2-libdistgen and python3-libdistgen. The fact it is implemented in python is just implementation detail.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1489257
Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda bkabrda@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(ignatenko@redhat. | |com)
--- Comment #9 from Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda bkabrda@redhat.com --- Igor, could you please be more specific about what doesn't comply with Python packaging guidelines in your opinion?
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com