[Bug 1418396] New: Review Request: python-the-new-hotness - Consume Anitya fedmsg messages to file bugzilla bugs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418396
Bug ID: 1418396 Summary: Review Request: python-the-new-hotness - Consume Anitya fedmsg messages to file bugzilla bugs Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jeremy@jcline.org QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
SRPM URL: https://jcline.fedorapeople.org/python-the-new-hotness-0.8.0-1.fc25.src.rpm Spec URL: https://jcline.fedorapeople.org/python-the-new-hotness.spec Description: Fedmsg consumer that listens to Anitya and files bugzilla bugs in response (to notify packagers that they can update their packages).
FAS account: jcline Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=17543786
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418396
Igor Gnatenko ignatenko@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |ignatenko@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Igor Gnatenko ignatenko@redhat.com --- Why python- prefix?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418396
--- Comment #2 from Jeremy Cline jeremy@jcline.org --- Well some of the fedmsg consumers use the prefix (https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-fedbadges/) and some don't (https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/github2fedmsg/). I'm not sure which is more appropriate and I don't really have a strong preference. I assumed that most things that just provide a Python module and aren't meant to be used as freestanding applications got the python- prefix. I thought this was documented somewhere, but I can't seem to find it so I might have just made that up.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418396
--- Comment #3 from Igor Gnatenko ignatenko@redhat.com --- (In reply to Jeremy Cline from comment #2)
Well some of the fedmsg consumers use the prefix (https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-fedbadges/) and some don't (https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/github2fedmsg/). I'm not sure which is more appropriate and I don't really have a strong preference. I assumed that most things that just provide a Python module and aren't meant to be used as freestanding applications got the python- prefix. I thought this was documented somewhere, but I can't seem to find it so I might have just made that up.
Yeah, basically if package provides module and it's supposed to be used (I mean `import foo`), then it should be python-. If it's just standalone application (isn't the-new-hotness like this?) - then without.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418396
--- Comment #4 from Jeremy Cline jeremy@jcline.org --- the-new-hotness needs fedmsg to run it (it declares a moksha.consumer entry point in its setup.py which is how fedmsg finds it) so it's not standalone, exactly. On the other hand, I don't really see people importing it. Given that, maybe getting rid of the prefix makes the most sense.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418396
--- Comment #5 from Jeremy Cline jeremy@jcline.org --- When I don't have the prefix on the package name, is it still acceptable to produce binary packages called python2-the-new-hotness and python3-the-new-hotness?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418396
--- Comment #6 from Igor Gnatenko ignatenko@redhat.com --- (In reply to Jeremy Cline from comment #4)
the-new-hotness needs fedmsg to run it (it declares a moksha.consumer entry point in its setup.py which is how fedmsg finds it) so it's not standalone, exactly. On the other hand, I don't really see people importing it. Given that, maybe getting rid of the prefix makes the most sense.
Yeah, let's get rid out of prefix.
(In reply to Jeremy Cline from comment #5)
When I don't have the prefix on the package name, is it still acceptable to produce binary packages called python2-the-new-hotness and python3-the-new-hotness?
why would you do this? why not to put everything in main package and don't create subpackages?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418396
--- Comment #7 from Jeremy Cline jeremy@jcline.org --- Okay, I've removed the prefix
SRPM URL: https://jcline.fedorapeople.org/the-new-hotness-0.8.0-1.fc25.src.rpm Spec URL: https://jcline.fedorapeople.org/the-new-hotness.spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418396
Igor Gnatenko ignatenko@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |python-the-new-hotness - |the-new-hotness - Consume |Consume Anitya fedmsg |Anitya fedmsg messages to |messages to file bugzilla |file bugzilla bugs |bugs |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418396
--- Comment #8 from Jeremy Cline jeremy@jcline.org --- Updated to latest upstream
SRPM URL: https://jcline.fedorapeople.org/the-new-hotness-0.8.1-1.fc27.src.rpm Spec URL: https://jcline.fedorapeople.org/the-new-hotness.spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418396
Björn "besser82" Esser besser82@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |besser82@fedoraproject.org Assignee|ignatenko@redhat.com |besser82@fedoraproject.org Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #9 from Björn "besser82" Esser besser82@fedoraproject.org --- I'll take it for review…
From having a quick look over the spec file:
* Group tag is obsolete since el6. I'd suggest removal.
* It's better to use %make_build instead of make %{?_smp_mflags}.
* %autosetup -p1 -n %{name}-%{version}: You can omit ' -n %{name}-%{version}'.
* %{python2_sitelib}/*: Simply globbing the whole contents of this subdir usualy isn't a good idea… It's better to explicitly name the single dirs or files being dropped there; this is especially important when converting a package to python3 later.
I'll run f-r in the meantime.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418396
--- Comment #10 from Björn "besser82" Esser besser82@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 1284493 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1284493&action=edit licensecheck from fedora-review
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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 29 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck is attached.
---> Some of the (installed) sources are licensed GPLv2+, which is not reflected by the License tag.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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 40960 bytes in 2 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
---> Severe issues in License tag 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. [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: [-]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in the-new- hotness-doc
---> doc-pkg is fine to be standalone.
[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. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
---> Package is noarch.
[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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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: the-new-hotness-0.8.1-1.fc27.noarch.rpm the-new-hotness-doc-0.8.1-1.fc27.noarch.rpm the-new-hotness-0.8.1-1.fc27.src.rpm the-new-hotness.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bugzilla -> Bugzilla the-new-hotness.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Fedmsg -> Feds the-new-hotness.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bugzilla -> Bugzilla the-new-hotness-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/the-new-hotness-doc/html/.nojekyll the-new-hotness-doc.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/the-new-hotness-doc/html/.nojekyll the-new-hotness.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bugzilla -> Bugzilla the-new-hotness.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Fedmsg -> Feds the-new-hotness.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bugzilla -> Bugzilla 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 7 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- the-new-hotness.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bugzilla -> Bugzilla the-new-hotness.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Fedmsg -> Feds the-new-hotness.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bugzilla -> Bugzilla the-new-hotness-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/the-new-hotness-doc/html/.nojekyll the-new-hotness-doc.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/the-new-hotness-doc/html/.nojekyll 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.
---> You should remove that .nojekyll file from built html-docs.
Requires -------- the-new-hotness (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): fedmsg git koji python(abi) python-bugzilla python-dogpile-cache python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure python-rpm python-six rpmdevtools
the-new-hotness-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- the-new-hotness: python2.7dist(the-new-hotness) python2dist(the-new-hotness) the-new-hotness
the-new-hotness-doc: the-new-hotness-doc
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/fedora-infra/the-new-hotness/archive/0.8.1/the-new-hotnes... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bb99ef701166b32001895fa5d1fd3fafaa87b70e589393164fd0e5fc9835a97c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bb99ef701166b32001895fa5d1fd3fafaa87b70e589393164fd0e5fc9835a97c
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1418396 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -o --no-bootstrap-chroot --no-cleanup-after --no-clean 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, because a severe issue is present. Please fix this an I'll have another review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418396
--- Comment #11 from Jeremy Cline jeremy@jcline.org --- Thanks for the review, I've addressed the issues.
SRPM URL: https://jcline.fedorapeople.org/the-new-hotness-0.8.1-2.fc27.src.rpm Spec URL: https://jcline.fedorapeople.org/the-new-hotness.spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418396
Björn "besser82" Esser besser82@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #12 from Björn "besser82" Esser besser82@fedoraproject.org --- Package LGTM now!
One suggestion:
* I'd use %{python2_sitelib}/the_new_hotness-%{version}-py%{python2_version}.egg-info instead of globbing %{python2_sitelib}/the_new_hotness-*.egg-info You are free whether to change this or not during import.
===== Solution =====
Package APPROVED!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418396
--- Comment #13 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/the-new-hotness
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com -
Red Hat Bugzilla