[Bug 1669913] New: Review Request: python-pyscaffold - Template tool for putting up the scaffold of a Python project
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1669913
Bug ID: 1669913 Summary: Review Request: python-pyscaffold - Template tool for putting up the scaffold of a Python project Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: sanjay.ankur@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-pyscaffold/python-pyscaffold.spec SRPM URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-pyscaffold/python-pyscaffold-3.1-...
Description: PyScaffold helps you setup a new Python project.
PyScaffold comes with a lot of elaborated features and configuration defaults to make the most common tasks in developing, maintaining and distributing your own Python package as easy as possible.
Fedora Account System Username: ankursinha
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1669913
Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1276941 (fedora-neuro)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276941 [Bug 1276941] Fedora NeuroImaging and NeuroScience tracking bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1669913
J. Scheurich mufti11@web.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mufti11@web.de
--- Comment #1 from J. Scheurich mufti11@web.de --- rpmlint find errors
$ rpmlint python3-pyscaffold-3.1-1.fc30.noarch.rpm python3-pyscaffold.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pyscaffold/templates/conftest_py.template 644 /usr/bin/python3 python3-pyscaffold.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pyscaffold/templates/setup_py.template 644 /usr/bin/python3 python3-pyscaffold.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pyscaffold/templates/skeleton.template 644 /usr/bin/python3 python3-pyscaffold.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pyscaffold/templates/test_skeleton.template 644 /usr/bin/python3 python3-pyscaffold.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pyscaffold/templates/travis_install.template 644 /bin/bash python3-pyscaffold.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary putup 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 1 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1669913
--- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com --- Thanks for the check.
Those are false positives. These files are templates used by the package and they contain shebangs for that purpose. They are not scripts really.
Cheers, Ankur
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1669913
Elliott Sales de Andrade quantum.analyst@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |quantum.analyst@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Elliott Sales de Andrade quantum.analyst@gmail.com --- Then if those are generic template files, should you really be replacing env in the shebang?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1669913
--- Comment #4 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com --- Yes, because on Fedora, the whole python tool chain will only support py3. There is no need to rely on /usr/bin/env.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1669913
Luis Bazan bazanluis20@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bazanluis20@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |bazanluis20@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1669913
Luis Bazan bazanluis20@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1669913
--- Comment #5 from Luis Bazan bazanluis20@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file license_affero_3.0.template is not marked as %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
===== 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]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [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]: 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]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [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]: 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: python3-pyscaffold-3.1-1.fc30.noarch.rpm python-pyscaffold-doc-3.1-1.fc30.noarch.rpm python-pyscaffold-3.1-1.fc30.src.rpm python3-pyscaffold.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pyscaffold/templates/conftest_py.template 644 /usr/bin/python3 python3-pyscaffold.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pyscaffold/templates/setup_py.template 644 /usr/bin/python3 python3-pyscaffold.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pyscaffold/templates/skeleton.template 644 /usr/bin/python3 python3-pyscaffold.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pyscaffold/templates/test_skeleton.template 644 /usr/bin/python3 python3-pyscaffold.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pyscaffold/templates/travis_install.template 644 /bin/bash python3-pyscaffold.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary putup 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 1 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Requires -------- python-pyscaffold-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
python3-pyscaffold (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3-setuptools python3-setuptools_scm python3dist(pytest-runner)
Provides -------- python-pyscaffold-doc: python-pyscaffold-doc
python3-pyscaffold: python3-pyscaffold python3.7dist(pyscaffold) python3dist(pyscaffold)
Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/P/PyScaffold/PyScaffold-3.1.t... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2286368ce628142f9ba090a3fc401065a1b1fcb8fff7ee21b7f6fa83a3c01bcb CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2286368ce628142f9ba090a3fc401065a1b1fcb8fff7ee21b7f6fa83a3c01bcb
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1669913 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=1669913
Luis Bazan bazanluis20@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1669913
Luis Bazan bazanluis20@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1669913
--- Comment #6 from Luis Bazan bazanluis20@gmail.com --- Approved!
Cheers,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1669913
Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #7 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com --- Thanks very much!
Repo requested: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/9547
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1669913
--- Comment #8 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pyscaffold
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1669913
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-pyscaffold-3.1-1.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-6f6ff97a6b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1669913
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-pyscaffold-3.1-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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-2019-6f6ff97a6b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1669913
--- Comment #11 from Elliott Sales de Andrade quantum.analyst@gmail.com --- (In reply to Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) from comment #4)
Yes, because on Fedora, the whole python tool chain will only support py3. There is no need to rely on /usr/bin/env.
For things that only exist in Fedora yes, but are these not generic templates to produce Python *packages* that you might put on, e.g., PyPI?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1669913
--- Comment #12 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com --- They are, but to use them for py2, one needs to use the py2 version of pyscaffold which we are not providing (cannot provide either since many of the deps do not provide py2 variants either). Like other packages, users that wish to use the py2 version will have to use virtualenvs and pip.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1669913
--- Comment #13 from Elliott Sales de Andrade quantum.analyst@gmail.com --- I'm not talking about Python 2, but about putting packages on PyPI. If you put scripts on there with /usr/bin/python3, then they will not use the virtualenv python (whether it's 2 or 3).
But now that I look at it a little closer, I don't think any of these files actually need a shebang, and it should be removed. I will open a PR for it upstream.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1669913
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2019-02-17 02:27:15
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-pyscaffold-3.1-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com