[Bug 1288456] New: Review Request: python-recommonmark - docutils-compatibility bridge to CommonMark
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288456
Bug ID: 1288456 Summary: Review Request: python-recommonmark - docutils-compatibility bridge to CommonMark Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jujens@jujens.eu QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://dl.jujens.eu/SPECS/python-recommonmark.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.jujens.eu/SRPMS/python-recommonmark-0.2.0-1.src.rpm Description: A docutils-compatibility bridge to CommonMark
This allows you to write CommonMark inside of Docutils & Sphinx projects.
Documentation is available on Read the Docs: http://recommonmark.readthedocs.org
Fedora Account System Username: jujens
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288456
Julien Enselme jujens@jujens.eu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |1288453
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288453 [Bug 1288453] Review Request: python-CommonMark - Python parser for the CommonMark Markdown spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288456 Bug 1288456 depends on bug 1288453, which changed state.
Bug 1288453 Summary: Review Request: python-CommonMark - Python parser for the CommonMark Markdown spec https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288453
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288456
Sundeep Anand suanand@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |suanand@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Sundeep Anand suanand@redhat.com --- This is un-official review of the package. ==========================================
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present.
===== 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". [-]: 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. [-]: 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 2 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]: 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. [-]: 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 python2-recommonmark , python3-recommonmark [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]: 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: python2-recommonmark-0.2.0-1.noarch.rpm python3-recommonmark-0.2.0-1.noarch.rpm python-recommonmark-0.2.0-1.src.rpm python2-recommonmark.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) docutils -> locutions python2-recommonmark.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C docutils-compatibility bridge to CommonMark python2-recommonmark.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US docutils -> locutions python3-recommonmark.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) docutils -> locutions python3-recommonmark.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C docutils-compatibility bridge to CommonMark python3-recommonmark.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US docutils -> locutions python3-recommonmark.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cm2xetex python3-recommonmark.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cm2man python3-recommonmark.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cm2html python3-recommonmark.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cm2latex python3-recommonmark.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cm2xml python3-recommonmark.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cm2pseudoxml python-recommonmark.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) docutils -> locutions python-recommonmark.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C docutils-compatibility bridge to CommonMark python-recommonmark.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US docutils -> locutions 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 15 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-recommonmark.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) docutils -> locutions python3-recommonmark.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C docutils-compatibility bridge to CommonMark python3-recommonmark.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US docutils -> locutions python3-recommonmark.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cm2man python3-recommonmark.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cm2latex python3-recommonmark.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cm2xetex python3-recommonmark.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cm2html python3-recommonmark.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cm2xml python3-recommonmark.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cm2pseudoxml python2-recommonmark.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) docutils -> locutions python2-recommonmark.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C docutils-compatibility bridge to CommonMark python2-recommonmark.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US docutils -> locutions 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings.
Requires -------- python3-recommonmark (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3-CommonMark python3-docutils
python2-recommonmark (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-docutils python2-CommonMark
Provides -------- python3-recommonmark: python3-recommonmark
python2-recommonmark: python-recommonmark python2-recommonmark
Source checksums ---------------- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rtfd/recommonmark/master/README.md : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b3db869d0734c4f0f2408f3e9c0d29d02ad81f7e2ac176866cb77c7c1f9d0bd4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b3db869d0734c4f0f2408f3e9c0d29d02ad81f7e2ac176866cb77c7c1f9d0bd4 https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/r/recommonmark/recommonmark-0.2.0.ta... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 28c0babc79c487280fc5bf5daf1f3f1d734e9e4293ba929a7617524ff6911fd7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 28c0babc79c487280fc5bf5daf1f3f1d734e9e4293ba929a7617524ff6911fd7 https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rtfd/recommonmark/master/license.md : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e597afeb32a6eeee8818c069e9b47c3f55f9c6d79052b649b3d732cd448e4593 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e597afeb32a6eeee8818c069e9b47c3f55f9c6d79052b649b3d732cd448e4593
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288456
--- Comment #2 from Julien Enselme jujens@jujens.eu --- Nice catch, thanks. I just updated the spec file:
- SPEC: http://dl.jujens.eu/SPECS/python-recommonmark.spec - SRPM: http://dl.jujens.eu/SRPMS/python-recommonmark-0.2.0-2.fc23.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288456
Pavel Alexeev pahan@hubbitus.info changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |pahan@hubbitus.info Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |pahan@hubbitus.info
--- Comment #3 from Pavel Alexeev pahan@hubbitus.info --- 0.4.0 version available. Please update and I will review package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288456
--- Comment #4 from Julien Enselme jujens@jujens.eu --- Just updated:
SPEC: http://dl.jujens.eu/SPECS/python-recommonmark.spec SRPM: http://dl.jujens.eu/SRPMS/python-recommonmark-0.4.0-1.fc23.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288456
--- Comment #5 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- hubbitus's scratch build of python-recommonmark-0.4.0-1.fc23.src.rpm for f23 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12520874
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288456
--- Comment #6 from Pavel Alexeev pahan@hubbitus.info --- Why binaries placed ony in python3 package?
Package Review ==============
Legend: [+] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [x] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [+]: 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". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/pasha/SOFT/review/python-recommonmark/1288456-python- recommonmark/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [+]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [+]: Changelog in prescribed format. [+]: 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. [+]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [+]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+]: Package does not generate any conflict. [+]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [+]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [+]: 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 20480 bytes in 2 files. [+]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [+]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [+]: Package installs properly. [+]: 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. [+]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [+]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [+]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [+]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [+]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [+]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [+]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [+]: Dist tag is present. [+]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [+]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [+]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [+]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [+]: Package is not relocatable. [+]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [+]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [+]: File names are valid UTF-8. [+]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python: [+]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [+]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [+]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [!]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel You must require both: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires [+]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [+]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [+]: 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). [+]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: Package functions as described. [+]: Latest version is packaged. [!]: 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. [+]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Please include %check [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [+]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [+]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [+]: Buildroot is not present [+]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [+]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [+]: SourceX is a working URL. [+]: 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288456
Pavel Alexeev pahan@hubbitus.info changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288456
--- Comment #7 from Julien Enselme jujens@jujens.eu ---
Why binaries placed ony in python3 package?
The python2 and python3 binaries should work the same. According to the guidelines, I may add them in only one package, the python3 one if possible. I can add them for python2 if you wish.
[!]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel You must require both
I do: I have the BuildRequires: python2-devel in the python 2 subpackage and BuildRequires: python3-devel in the python3 one.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288456
--- Comment #8 from Pavel Alexeev pahan@hubbitus.info --- (In reply to Julien Enselme from comment #7)
Why binaries placed ony in python3 package?
The python2 and python3 binaries should work the same. According to the guidelines, I may add them in only one package, the python3 one if possible. I can add them for python2 if you wish.
No. According to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Executables_in_.2Fusr.2Fbin you indeed may package version built by any version of python untill it provide same functionality. But it should be placed in python-recommonmark, nor python2-recommonmark nor python3-recommonmark. Please see python-pygments provided as example in guidelines.
[!]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel You must require both
I do: I have the BuildRequires: python2-devel in the python 2 subpackage and BuildRequires: python3-devel in the python3 one.
I'm not sure there, but example list it also in main package: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_common_spec_file Possible you are right and it may be equal... Is not?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288456
--- Comment #9 from Pavel Alexeev pahan@hubbitus.info --- You should also include %check section and do not include license separate from upstream.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288456
--- Comment #10 from Julien Enselme jujens@jujens.eu ---
Possible you are right and it may be equal... Is not?
As far as I know it is equal. The package wouldn't pull python3-devel in the other case. I just prefer to put every requires in the proper subpackage.
You should also include %check section
Since there is no test, I don't think it is relevant. I can add an empty one, but during another review, it was pointed out that I shouldn't do that.
do not include license separate from upstream.
The license comes from the git upstream repository, so in my point of view it comes from upstream. If the license is not included in the tarball I fetch it from github if possible so the package contains a license provided but upstream anyway. I was never told this is a bad practice, nor do I think it is.
But it should be placed in python-recommonmark, nor python2-recommonmark nor python3-recommonmark.
I don't see where this is mentioned in the guideline. Placing it in the python-recommonmark (ie for now in the python2-recommonmark package, since this package provides python-recommonmark) would require to install the python3-recommonmark package with the python2 one as the executable is built for python3 and so will depends on files from /usr/share/python3.x/site-packages. I don't think this is the best way to do it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288456
--- Comment #11 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- hubbitus's scratch build of python-recommonmark-0.4.0-1.fc23.src.rpm for f23 failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12579137
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288456
--- Comment #12 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- hubbitus's scratch build of python-recommonmark-0.4.0-1.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12579171
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288456
--- Comment #13 from Pavel Alexeev pahan@hubbitus.info --- (In reply to Julien Enselme from comment #10)
You should also include %check section
Since there is no test, I don't think it is relevant.
Why you think so? According to logs its at least does not fail: + /usr/bin/python2 setup.py test warning: no files found matching 'MANIFEST' warning: no files found matching '*' under directory 'extras' warning: no previously-included files matching '.cvsignore' found under directory '*' warning: no previously-included files matching '*.pyc' found under directory '*' warning: no previously-included files matching '*~' found under directory '*' warning: no previously-included files matching '.DS_Store' found under directory '*' zip_safe flag not set; analyzing archive contents... docutils.parsers.rst.directives.misc: module references __file__ docutils.writers.docutils_xml: module references __path__ docutils.writers.html4css1.__init__: module references __file__ docutils.writers.pep_html.__init__: module references __file__ docutils.writers.s5_html.__init__: module references __file__ docutils.writers.latex2e.__init__: module references __file__ docutils.writers.odf_odt.__init__: module references __file__ zip_safe flag not set; analyzing archive contents...
do not include license separate from upstream.
The license comes from the git upstream repository, so in my point of view it comes from upstream. If the license is not included in the tarball I fetch it from github if possible so the package contains a license provided but upstream anyway. I was never told this is a bad practice, nor do I think it is.
It included separate from upstream even by separate Source tags. Alternatively you may use tarball from github (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL#Co...) - they are include license.
But it should be placed in python-recommonmark, nor python2-recommonmark nor python3-recommonmark.
I don't see where this is mentioned in the guideline. Placing it in the python-recommonmark (ie for now in the python2-recommonmark package, since this package provides python-recommonmark) would require to install the python3-recommonmark package with the python2 one as the executable is built for python3 and so will depends on files from /usr/share/python3.x/site-packages. I don't think this is the best way to do it.
The main point there place site-part in packages have python number (2 or 3) in name as it require according version of python.
If you have binaries which is work absolutely same on python3 and python2 it have no sence provide it in both packages. So, for any system which may use 2 or 3 python should be installed one package with one binary. In you case only one got binary.
Additionally not all requirements mentioned and package failed to build: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9172/12579172/build.log
No local packages or download links found for docutils>=0.11
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288456
--- Comment #14 from Julien Enselme jujens@jujens.eu ---
According to logs its at least does not fail:
- /usr/bin/python2 setup.py test
But according to the logs, it doesn't launch any tests. So I don't see the point of launching it. There are tests in the github repo but not in the tarball from pypi. And since there is not tag nor release on github (https://github.com/rtfd/recommonmark), I cannot take the source from github. For 0.4.0 there isn't even a commit telling me which revision to take. So I think I'm stuck with sources from pypi.
Additionally not all requirements mentioned and package failed to build
According to the logs, it happened when you tried to launch the tests with setup.py. Your previous build worked and I just tested with fedora-review and encountered no problem.
It included separate from upstream even by separate Source tags.
Good to know.
- SPEC: http://dl.jujens.eu/SPECS/python-recommonmark.spec - SRPM: http://dl.jujens.eu/SRPMS/python-recommonmark-0.4.0-2.fc23.src.rpm
* Sat Jan 16 2016 Julien Enselme jujens@jujens.eu - 0.4.0-2 - Remove separate source tag for license - Add binary to python2 subpackage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288456
--- Comment #15 from Pavel Alexeev pahan@hubbitus.info --- (In reply to Julien Enselme from comment #14)
According to logs its at least does not fail:
- /usr/bin/python2 setup.py test
But according to the logs, it doesn't launch any tests.
According to the logs, it happened when you tried to launch the tests with setup.py. Your previous build worked and I just tested with fedora-review and encountered no problem.
Does run nothing but require addition dependency? :)
docutil mentioned as dep even in setup.py from pupi tarball.
And since there is not tag nor release on github (https://github.com/rtfd/recommonmark), I cannot take the source from github. For 0.4.0 there isn't even a commit telling me which revision to take. So I think I'm stuck with sources from pypi.
First is very easy way. You may not search point when such tarball was created, but include current master state following post-release naming scheme: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/Namin...
I have not see sense to do that, but if you want provide exactly 0.4.0 commit it very easy to find for that project as it have small amount of commits: It is https://github.com/rtfd/recommonmark/commit/7ca5247b342e755ce5294d43b5fef68a... where version was bumped. Next commit https://github.com/rtfd/recommonmark/commit/06bf23745e83abf1161b369046c6a38f... in file which is not in pupi tarball at all, and next one absent: https://github.com/rtfd/recommonmark/commit/d0560b1693a3e5641524daab331a1a2f...
So, 7ca5247b342e755ce5294d43b5fef68afd90028e is what you look for.
Even it include tests and license file.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288456
--- Comment #16 from Julien Enselme jujens@jujens.eu ---
Does run nothing but require addition dependency? :)
docutil mentioned as dep even in setup.py from pupi tarball.
It isn't a build deps in the SPEC so when you try to run the test and it is not there it fails but it is a require so it will get installed with package. ;-)
So, 7ca5247b342e755ce5294d43b5fef68afd90028e is what you look for.
Thanks for looking that up. Switching to a tarball from github.
SPEC: http://dl.jujens.eu/SPECS/python-recommonmark.spec SRPM: http://dl.jujens.eu/SRPMS/python-recommonmark-0.4.0-3.git7ca5247.fc23.src.rp...
* Sun Jan 17 2016 Julien Enselme jujens@jujens.eu - 0.4.0-3.git7ca5247 - Use tarball from github to have tests and LICENSE - Add %%check section
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288456
--- Comment #17 from Pavel Alexeev pahan@hubbitus.info --- Now it fails to test because you forgot add python2-CommonMark and python3-CommonMark as BuildRequires: + cd recommonmark-7ca5247b342e755ce5294d43b5fef68afd90028e + py.test-3.4 . ============================= test session starts ============================== platform linux -- Python 3.4.2 -- py-1.4.30 -- pytest-2.6.4 collected 0 items / 1 errors ==================================== ERRORS ==================================== _____________________ ERROR collecting tests/test_basic.py _____________________ tests/test_basic.py:5: in <module> from recommonmark.parser import CommonMarkParser recommonmark/parser.py:6: in <module> from CommonMark import DocParser, HTMLRenderer E ImportError: No module named 'CommonMark' =========================== 1 error in 0.05 seconds ============================
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288456
--- Comment #18 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- jujens's scratch build of python-recommonmark-0.4.0-3.git7ca5247.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12587042
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288456
--- Comment #19 from Julien Enselme jujens@jujens.eu --- This time it should be good (correction done without a change of revision):
SPEC: http://dl.jujens.eu/SPECS/python-recommonmark.spec SRPM: http://dl.jujens.eu/SRPMS/python-recommonmark-.4.0-3.git7ca5247.fc23.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288456
--- Comment #20 from Pavel Alexeev pahan@hubbitus.info --- SRPM url incorrect.
It is very bad practice make changes without touch changelog and bump version (release). And until it is not imported in Fedora I look at that now. But please, do not do such in the future.
Why you direct run tests instead of use recommended %{__python2} setup.py test? It is not stop issue, but I recommend use setup.py. For example it may then be changed upstream and require some parameters, bootstraping, options and so on.
If you provide binaries with version suffixes in both packages python 2 package must contain one without suffix: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Naming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288456
--- Comment #21 from Julien Enselme jujens@jujens.eu ---
SRPM url incorrect.
Sorry about that.
It is very bad practice make changes without touch changelog and bump version (release). And until it is not imported in Fedora I look at that now. But please, do not do such in the future.
I know it is a bad practice. Since the package is not yet imported, I did it to avoid creating a changelog entry for a silly mistake. I would never have done that on an imported package.
Why you direct run tests instead of use recommended %{__python2} setup.py test?
In this case (as with some other packages) running %{__python2} setup.py test doesn't discover test because of missing information about tests in the setup.py file. In such cases, I found that using pytest is an easy way out. If it causes problem with the package, I will change it.
If you provide binaries with version suffixes in both packages python 2 package must contain one without suffix
Indeed.
SPEC: http://dl.jujens.eu/SPECS/python-recommonmark.spec SRPM: http://dl.jujens.eu/SRPMS/python-recommonmark-0.4.0-4.git7ca5247.fc23.src.rp...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288456
Pavel Alexeev pahan@hubbitus.info changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #22 from Pavel Alexeev pahan@hubbitus.info --- Sorry for the delay with answer.
(In reply to Julien Enselme from comment #21)
In this case (as with some other packages) running %{__python2} setup.py test doesn't discover test because of missing information about tests in the setup.py file. In such cases, I found that using pytest is an easy way out. If it causes problem with the package, I will change it.
Honestly I do not known best practice there. I think main aim to run test archived. So it enough.
All issues addressed. Package APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288456
--- Comment #23 from Julien Enselme jujens@jujens.eu ---
Sorry for the delay with answer.
No problem.
All issues addressed. Package APPROVED.
Thanks.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288456
--- Comment #24 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/python-recommonmark
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288456
--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-recommonmark-0.4.0-4.git7ca5247.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3c73fc30e7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288456
--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-recommonmark-0.4.0-4.git7ca5247.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3c73fc30e7
--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-recommonmark-0.4.0-4.git7ca5247.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-2cd03bceee
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288456
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288456
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288456
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-recommonmark-0.4.0-4.git7ca5247.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-2016-2cd03bceee
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288456
--- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-recommonmark-0.4.0-4.git7ca5247.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-2016-3c73fc30e7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288456
--- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-recommonmark-0.4.0-4.git7ca5247.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=1288456
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2016-02-03 15:51:07
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288456
--- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-recommonmark-0.4.0-4.git7ca5247.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