[Bug 1286699] New: Review Request: python-django-multiselectfield - A multi-select form field and model for Django
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1286699
Bug ID: 1286699 Summary: Review Request: python-django-multiselectfield - A multi-select form field and model for Django Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: sgallagh@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/python-django-multiselectfie... SRPM URL: https://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/python-django-multiselectfie... Description: A new model and form field. With this you can get a multiple select from choices
Fedora Account System Username: sgallagh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1286699
--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- jcline's scratch build of python-django-multiselectfield-0.1.3-1.fc23.src.rpm for f23 failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12026844
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1286699
--- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- jcline's scratch build of python-django-multiselectfield-0.1.3-1.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12026871
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1286699
--- Comment #3 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- jcline's scratch build of python-django-multiselectfield-0.1.3-1.fc23.src.rpm for epel7 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12026901
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1286699
Jeremy Cline jeremy@jcline.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jeremy@jcline.org
--- Comment #4 from Jeremy Cline jeremy@jcline.org --- Hi Stephen!
My review is informal, as I am currently working towards becoming a package maintainer.
I assume this is for EPEL 7 only, since python-django-1.6 is only in EPEL 7.
1) I think it's best to be explicit about the version of Python used. You can use %{__python2} in place of %{__python}, or make use of the %py2_build and %py2_install macros, which should be available in F22+ and EPEL 7.
2) fedora-review is unhappy due to un-owned directories:
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python2.7/site- packages/multiselectfield/locale/es, /usr/lib/python2.7/site- packages/multiselectfield/locale/es/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/lib/python2.7 /site-packages/multiselectfield/forms, /usr/lib/python2.7/site- packages/multiselectfield, /usr/lib/python2.7/site- packages/multiselectfield/db, /usr/lib/python2.7/site- packages/multiselectfield/locale [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python2.7/site- packages/multiselectfield, /usr/lib/python2.7/site- packages/multiselectfield/locale/es, /usr/lib/python2.7/site- packages/multiselectfield/locale/es/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/lib/python2.7 /site-packages/multiselectfield/forms, /usr/lib/python2.7/site- packages/multiselectfield/locale, /usr/lib/python2.7/site- packages/multiselectfield/db
I think the correct solution is to change
%{python2_sitelib}/multiselectfield/*.py* %{python2_sitelib}/multiselectfield/db/*.py* %{python2_sitelib}/multiselectfield/forms/*.py*
to %{python2_sitelib}/multiselectfield
3) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Handling_Locale_Files doesn't seem to mention .po locale files, but I don't think they need to be packaged since they are just the human-readable version of the .mo files. However, I am far from an expert on the subject.
I hope this informal review is useful, good luck with your formal review!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1286699
--- Comment #5 from Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com --- (In reply to Jeremy Cline from comment #4)
Hi Stephen!
My review is informal, as I am currently working towards becoming a package maintainer.
Much appreciated!
I assume this is for EPEL 7 only, since python-django-1.6 is only in EPEL 7.
Yes, I forgot to note that in the original request, but it's intended for EPEL 7 only in order to support the newest version of Review Board.
- I think it's best to be explicit about the version of Python used. You
can use %{__python2} in place of %{__python}, or make use of the %py2_build and %py2_install macros, which should be available in F22+ and EPEL 7.
I agree, I will do that.
- fedora-review is unhappy due to un-owned directories:
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python2.7/site- packages/multiselectfield/locale/es, /usr/lib/python2.7/site- packages/multiselectfield/locale/es/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/lib/python2.7 /site-packages/multiselectfield/forms, /usr/lib/python2.7/site- packages/multiselectfield, /usr/lib/python2.7/site- packages/multiselectfield/db, /usr/lib/python2.7/site- packages/multiselectfield/locale [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python2.7/site- packages/multiselectfield, /usr/lib/python2.7/site- packages/multiselectfield/locale/es, /usr/lib/python2.7/site- packages/multiselectfield/locale/es/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/lib/python2.7 /site-packages/multiselectfield/forms, /usr/lib/python2.7/site- packages/multiselectfield/locale, /usr/lib/python2.7/site- packages/multiselectfield/db
I think the correct solution is to change
%{python2_sitelib}/multiselectfield/*.py* %{python2_sitelib}/multiselectfield/db/*.py* %{python2_sitelib}/multiselectfield/forms/*.py*
to %{python2_sitelib}/multiselectfield
Thanks.
doesn't seem to mention .po locale files, but I don't think they need to be packaged since they are just the human-readable version of the .mo files. However, I am far from an expert on the subject.
I hope this informal review is useful, good luck with your formal review!
Much obliged. I'll update this with a new Spec and SRPM shortly.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1286699
William Moreno williamjmorenor@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |williamjmorenor@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |williamjmorenor@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #6 from William Moreno williamjmorenor@gmail.com --- Hi am mentoring Jeremy so I will take this review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1286699
--- Comment #7 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- sgallagh's scratch build of python-django-multiselectfield-0.1.3-2.fc23.src.rpm for epel7 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12032212
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1286699
--- Comment #8 from Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/python-django-multiselectfie... SRPM URL: https://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/python-django-multiselectfie...
EPEL 7 scratch-build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12032212
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1286699
--- Comment #9 from William Moreno williamjmorenor@gmail.com --- Jeremy:
1- From python packages allways check if upstream support python3, python3 builds must be prefered over python2 builds as part of the move of Fedora to python3 by default.
2- For Fedora and epel7 there is no need of clean before and after %%install
3- For Fedora and epel7 there is no need of %%defattr in %%files
4- For Fedora and epel7 provides a python2 package now it is mandatory also you must use the python-provides macro.
5- Epel7 now support python but there is a lot of packages than do not build with python3 in epel7 I should recomend request to the package maintainer to build with python3 in epel7 and include a link to the bug in the spec to track whem the package can build with both python2 and python3 in epel7
Package Review ============== 1. For epel7 there not need of %clean also you can drop the rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %%install [Fail]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
2. For epel7 there is not need of %%defattr in %%files [Fail]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
3. There is not a update in the changelog for the 2 release, you can update this changes without need to bump other release. [Fail]: Changelog in prescribed format.
4. In epel7 there is support for python3 and upstream support python2 and python3 bug there is not support for python3 in the epel7 build of python-django. Any way current Python Packaging Guidelines for Fedora and epel7 requires to provide a python2-subpackage and use the python-provides macro. [Fail]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=702298
5. Looks like upstream provides some test than you sloud try to run in the build process [Fail]: %check is present and all tests pass. https://github.com/goinnn/django-multiselectfield/blob/master/example/run_te...
===== MUST items ===== Generic: [Pass]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [Pass]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [Pass]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [Pass]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [NA]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [NA]: Development files must be in a -devel package [Pass]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [Pass]: Package consistently uses macros. [Pass]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [Pass]: Package does not generate any conflict. [Pass]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [Pass]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [Pass]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [NA]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [NA]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [NA]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. [NA]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [Pass]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [Pass]: Package installs properly. [Pass]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. [Pass]: 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. [Pass]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [Pass]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [Pass]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [Pass]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [Pass]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [Pass]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [Pass]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [Pass]: Dist tag is present. [Pass]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [Pass]: Permissions on files are set properly. [Pass]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [Pass]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [Pass]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [Pass]: Package is not relocatable. [Pass]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [Pass]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [Pass]: File names are valid UTF-8. [Pass]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python: [Pass]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [Pass]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [Pass]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [Pass]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [NA]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [Pass]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [NA]: Package functions as described. [Pass]: Latest version is packaged. [Pass]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [NA]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [NA]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [Pass]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [Pass]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [Pass]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [Pass]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [Pass]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [Pass]: SourceX is a working URL. [Pass]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [Pass]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. [Pass]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-django-multiselectfield-0.1.3-2.fc21.noarch.rpm python-django-multiselectfield-0.1.3-2.fc21.src.rpm python-django-multiselectfield.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi -> mulch, mufti python-django-multiselectfield.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.3-1 ['0.1.3-2.fc21', '0.1.3-2'] python-django-multiselectfield.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi -> mulch, mufti 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python-django-multiselectfield.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi -> mulch, mufti python-django-multiselectfield.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.3-1 ['0.1.3-2.fc21', '0.1.3-2'] 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Requires -------- python-django-multiselectfield (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-django
Provides -------- python-django-multiselectfield: python-django-multiselectfield
Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/d/django-multiselectfield/django-mul... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3b7e950323d477e40660d737bf79777d9122c3962a55af5bd60819e40472fc6c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3b7e950323d477e40660d737bf79777d9122c3962a55af5bd60819e40472fc6c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1286699
--- Comment #10 from Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com --- (In reply to William Moreno from comment #9)
Jeremy:
1- From python packages allways check if upstream support python3, python3 builds must be prefered over python2 builds as part of the move of Fedora to python3 by default.
In this particular case, it is intended only for EPEL 7, where python-django does not support Python 3. I do not intend to maintain this in Fedora. Therefore there is no reason to package a python 3 version of this project. (Upstream supports Python 3 only when used with a version of Django that also supports it)
2- For Fedora and epel7 there is no need of clean before and after %%install
True, that was a leftover from the old spec I copied from.
3- For Fedora and epel7 there is no need of %%defattr in %%files
Same as 2.
4- For Fedora and epel7 provides a python2 package now it is mandatory also you must use the python-provides macro.
Huh, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#The_.25python_provide_macro is really confusing. How exactly is this macro supposed to be used?
5- Epel7 now support python but there is a lot of packages than do not build with python3 in epel7 I should recomend request to the package maintainer to build with python3 in epel7 and include a link to the bug in the spec to track whem the package can build with both python2 and python3 in epel7
See above; python 3 support is not useful.
Package Review
- For epel7 there not need of %clean also you can drop the rm -rf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %%install [Fail]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
- For epel7 there is not need of %%defattr in %%files
[Fail]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
- There is not a update in the changelog for the 2 release, you can update
this changes without need to bump other release. [Fail]: Changelog in prescribed format.
- In epel7 there is support for python3 and upstream support python2 and
python3 bug there is not support for python3 in the epel7 build of python-django. Any way current Python Packaging Guidelines for Fedora and epel7 requires to provide a python2-subpackage and use the python-provides macro. [Fail]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=702298
- Looks like upstream provides some test than you sloud try to run in the
build process [Fail]: %check is present and all tests pass. https://github.com/goinnn/django-multiselectfield/blob/master/example/ run_tests.py
These tests are not included in the release tarball, so I cannot run them.
===== MUST items ===== Generic: [Pass]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [Pass]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [Pass]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [Pass]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [NA]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [NA]: Development files must be in a -devel package [Pass]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [Pass]: Package consistently uses macros. [Pass]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [Pass]: Package does not generate any conflict. [Pass]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [Pass]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [Pass]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [NA]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [NA]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [NA]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. [NA]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [Pass]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [Pass]: Package installs properly. [Pass]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. [Pass]: 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. [Pass]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [Pass]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [Pass]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [Pass]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [Pass]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [Pass]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [Pass]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [Pass]: Dist tag is present. [Pass]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [Pass]: Permissions on files are set properly. [Pass]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [Pass]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [Pass]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [Pass]: Package is not relocatable. [Pass]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [Pass]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [Pass]: File names are valid UTF-8. [Pass]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python: [Pass]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [Pass]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [Pass]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [Pass]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [NA]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [Pass]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [NA]: Package functions as described. [Pass]: Latest version is packaged. [Pass]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [NA]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [NA]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [Pass]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [Pass]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [Pass]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [Pass]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [Pass]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [Pass]: SourceX is a working URL. [Pass]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [Pass]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. [Pass]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
Checking: python-django-multiselectfield-0.1.3-2.fc21.noarch.rpm python-django-multiselectfield-0.1.3-2.fc21.src.rpm python-django-multiselectfield.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi -> mulch, mufti python-django-multiselectfield.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.3-1 ['0.1.3-2.fc21', '0.1.3-2'] python-django-multiselectfield.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi -> mulch, mufti 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
python-django-multiselectfield.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi -> mulch, mufti python-django-multiselectfield.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.3-1 ['0.1.3-2.fc21', '0.1.3-2'] 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Requires
python-django-multiselectfield (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-django
Provides
python-django-multiselectfield: python-django-multiselectfield
Source checksums
https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/d/django-multiselectfield/django- multiselectfield-0.1.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3b7e950323d477e40660d737bf79777d9122c3962a55af5bd60819e40472fc6c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3b7e950323d477e40660d737bf79777d9122c3962a55af5bd60819e40472fc6c
Spec URL: https://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/python-django-multiselectfie... SRPM URL: https://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/python-django-multiselectfie...
EPEL 7 scratch-build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12040471
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1286699
--- Comment #11 from Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/python-django-multiselectfie... SRPM URL: https://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/python-django-multiselectfie...
EPEL 7 scratch-build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12040534
I forgot to switch to the %python_provide macro. This version corrects that.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1286699
William Moreno williamjmorenor@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #12 from William Moreno williamjmorenor@gmail.com --- Package Aproved ===============
The cvs request have been deprecated, you must request the new package from the pkgdb:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/request/package/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1286699
--- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/python-django-multiselectfield
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1286699
William Moreno williamjmorenor@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed| |2016-01-11 16:11:15
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla