[Bug 1239008] New: Review Request: bumpversion - Version-bump your software with a single command
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1239008
Bug ID: 1239008 Summary: Review Request: bumpversion - Version-bump your software with a single command Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jdornak@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://jdornak.fedorapeople.org/bumpversion.spec SRPM URL: http://jdornak.fedorapeople.org/bumpversion-0.5.3-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: A small command line tool to simplify releasing software by updating all version strings in your source code by the correct increment. Also creates commits and tags:
* version formats are highly configurable * works without any VCS, but happily reads tag information from and writes commits and tags to Git and Mercurial if available * just handles text files, so it's not specific to any programming language
Fedora Account System Username: jdornak
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1239008
Björn "besser82" Esser bjoern.esser@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |bjoern.esser@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |bjoern.esser@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Björn "besser82" Esser bjoern.esser@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues: ======= - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
---> * Please BR: python2-devel * Consider building a Python3-package.
===== 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". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/1239008-bumpversion/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
---> Patch0: Is of unknown origin… Other concerns about that see later on.
[-]: 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. [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
---> Macros are used, but they are deprecated. Use the corresponding python2_*-macros instead.
[!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
---> Python-packages are to be prefixed with python{,3}.
[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 20480 bytes in 1 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
---> Severe issues are present. ;(
[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. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
---> See BR: python2-devel and macros.
[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.
---> License-file is missing in upstream-tarball. Please contact upstream about it.
[!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
---> files in %{_bindir} should require /usr/bin/python{2,3}.
[x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
---> There is a license-file included using Patch0. I do not know where it comes from. Never ever do it that way! A better way is to include the file as Source1 and with *FULL* url to upstreams repo, e.g. `https://raw.githubusercontent.com/peritus/bumpversion/master/LICENSE.rst%60 Using `spectool -g $specfile` will download the file then and we have a reliable hint, where it comes from and whether it is legitimate.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
---> See above.
[-]: 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. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: 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: bumpversion-0.5.3-1.fc23.noarch.rpm bumpversion-0.5.3-1.fc23.src.rpm bumpversion.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bumpversion 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- bumpversion.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bumpversion 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Requires -------- bumpversion (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python python(abi)
Provides -------- bumpversion: bumpversion
Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/b/bumpversion/bumpversion-0.5.3.tar.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6744c873dd7aafc24453d8b6a1a0d6d109faf63cd0cd19cb78fd46e74932c77e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6744c873dd7aafc24453d8b6a1a0d6d109faf63cd0cd19cb78fd46e74932c77e
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1239008 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Solution ========
NOT approved. Please fix those issues and I'll take another look.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1239008
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Dorňák jdornak@redhat.com --- I have changed the macros to use python3, which is going to be default in very near future. (I intentionally used generic macros, because the code is both python2 and python3 compatible, but I see that it wouldn't work well anyway.)
LICENSE.rst is included as suggested (Source1). Upstream already added it into MANIFEST.in, so it will be included in any further tarball.
I leave the package name as is. It is not python package, it is rather utility written in python.
Thank You.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1239008
Jakub Dorňák jdornak@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(bjoern.esser@gmai | |l.com)
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Dorňák jdornak@redhat.com --- Is it OK now?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1239008
Jakub Dorňák jdornak@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEW Assignee|bjoern.esser@gmail.com |nobody@fedoraproject.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1239008
Tomas Repik trepik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |trepik@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |trepik@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1239008
Tomas Repik trepik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags|needinfo?(fedora@besser82.i | |o) |
--- Comment #4 from Tomas Repik trepik@redhat.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues: ======= - All issues mentioned in previous review resolved
---> Not sure about the second point in MUST items
---> files in %{_bindir} should require /usr/bin/python3
===== 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. [?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/trepik/1239008-bumpversion/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 20480 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]: 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. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
---> files in %{_bindir} should require /usr/bin/python3.
[x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: 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: bumpversion-0.5.3-1.fc22.noarch.rpm bumpversion-0.5.3-1.fc22.src.rpm bumpversion.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bumpversion 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- bumpversion.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bumpversion 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Requires -------- bumpversion (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi)
Provides -------- bumpversion: bumpversion
Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/b/bumpversion/bumpversion-0.5.3.tar.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6744c873dd7aafc24453d8b6a1a0d6d109faf63cd0cd19cb78fd46e74932c77e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6744c873dd7aafc24453d8b6a1a0d6d109faf63cd0cd19cb78fd46e74932c77e https://raw.githubusercontent.com/peritus/bumpversion/v0.5.3/LICENSE.rst : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a00f4a6917717dbaf064f197fdf5db6e2410f5dfb21286d2c174eefb814ccdfe CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a00f4a6917717dbaf064f197fdf5db6e2410f5dfb21286d2c174eefb814ccdfe
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1239008 Buildroot used: fedora-22-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1239008
Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |vondruch@redhat.com
--- Comment #5 from Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com --- Just a few comments:
* LICENSE.rst - I don't think it is mandatory to add the license file if it is not included, but since you added it and you install the file, it would be nice to include also reference to the upstream issue or commit. - BTW I mis the point of "test -e LICENSE.rst", you probably don't want this kind of conditions in your package. You either ship your license file or the license file coming from the source tarball, but you want to be sure which license file it is.
* Exclamation mark in summary - Is the exclamation mark in summary really necessary? If it were dot, rpmlint would complain about it [1].
* Bump the release - It is good habit to bump the release between review cycles. Coming late to the review, I can't see what was actually changed :/
Otherwise the package looks good, though I am not Python packager ...
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#summary-ended-with-dot
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1239008
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Dorňák jdornak@redhat.com --- * Tue Dec 1 2015 Jakub Dorňák jdornak@redhat.com - 0.5.3-2 - Remove exclamation mark from summary - Use tarball from git, which contains LICENSE.rst
http://jdornak.fedorapeople.org/bumpversion-0.5.3-2.fc23.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1239008
--- Comment #7 from Tomas Repik trepik@redhat.com --- All MUST items are resolved. I think it's all good and done, unless you'd like it to be perfect, by including manpages as one of the SHOULD items suggests.
* SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.
If you're OK without manpages then I can change the state to MODIFIED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1239008
--- Comment #8 from Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com --- (In reply to Tomas Repik from comment #7)
If you're OK without manpages then I can change the state to MODIFIED.
If you are satisfied and the review is done from your POV, then you should say that you APPROVE the package and set the review+ flag.
MODIFIED is not appropriate state in this case. MODIFIED should be set by package maintainer when the code is submitted into dist-git or the package is already built and waiting in for testing in Bodhi.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1239008
Tomas Repik trepik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1239008
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Dorňák jdornak@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: bumpversion Short Description: Version-bump your software with a single command Upstream URL: https://github.com/peritus/bumpversion Owners: jdornak Branches: f22 f23 InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1239008
Jakub Dorňák jdornak@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEW
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1239008
Jakub Dorňák jdornak@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1239008
--- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/bumpversion
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1239008
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- bumpversion-0.5.3-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-08d2653e3c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1239008
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1239008
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- bumpversion-0.5.3-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-61a8e1487c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1239008
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- bumpversion-0.5.3-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 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-2015-61a8e1487c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1239008
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- bumpversion-0.5.3-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 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-2015-08d2653e3c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1239008
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- bumpversion-0.5.3-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1239008
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2016-01-05 16:56:14
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1239008
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- bumpversion-0.5.3-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla