https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1280422
Bug ID: 1280422 Summary: Review Request: rpg - RPM Package Generator Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jsilhan@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://jsilhan.fedorapeople.org/rpg.spec
SRPM URL: https://jsilhan.fedorapeople.org/rpg-0.0.4-1.git.20.4b321ab.fc22.src.rpm
Description: RPG [1] is tool, that guides people through the creation of a RPM package. RPG makes packaging much easier due to the automatic analysis of packaged files. Beginners can get familiar with packaging process or the advanced users can use our tool for a quick creation of a package.
Fedora Account System Username: jsilhan
I am one of the upstream developers. I don't need a sponsor - I am already in a package group. The package is build fine in COPR repository [2].
[1] https://github.com/rh-lab-q/rpg [2] https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/nightly/rpg/builds/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1280422
Raphael Groner projects.rg@smart.ms changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |projects.rg@smart.ms
--- Comment #1 from Raphael Groner projects.rg@smart.ms --- Your links are b0rken. Please provide a link to a valid spec file in raw format, any html around it is of no usage here.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1280422
--- Comment #2 from Jan Silhan jsilhan@redhat.com --- Fixed, these links should not contain different content type:
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rh-lab-q/rpg/4b321abe5942dd653f7269a6716f0...
SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/nightly/rpg/fedora-22-x86_64...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1280422
--- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpg
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1280422
Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kevin@scrye.com
--- Comment #4 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com --- I see no review here at all, and the package is not approved.
Please do not import it or build it until it's been reviewed.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1280422
Till Maas opensource@till.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |opensource@till.name
--- Comment #5 from Till Maas opensource@till.name --- It looks like this package was created without the review being finished by accident. Therefore I retired it in Fedora. There needs to be a review done as described in: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1280422
Ranjan Maitra itsme_410@yahoo.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |itsme_410@yahoo.com
--- Comment #6 from Ranjan Maitra itsme_410@yahoo.com --- Does this package still need a review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1280422
--- Comment #7 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com --- Yes. It's unassigned, and the fedora-review flag isn't set. So, it does need review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1280422
--- Comment #8 from Ranjan Maitra itsme_410@yahoo.com --- I tried using fedora-review tool on this, but it appears that there two src.rpms therefore there is a conflict.
$ fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1280422 .... ERROR: Expected to find single rebuilt srpm, found 2.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1280422
--- Comment #9 from Jan Silhan jsilhan@redhat.com --- links from comment 0 are invalidated now. Try it again, please.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1280422
--- Comment #10 from Ranjan Maitra itsme_410@yahoo.com --- (In reply to Jan Silhan from comment #9)
links from comment 0 are invalidated now. Try it again, please.
Great, thanks! But: I now get:
$ fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1280422 INFO: Processing bugzilla bug: 1280422 INFO: Getting .spec and .srpm Urls from : 1280422 INFO: --> SRPM url: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/nightly/rpg/fedora-22-x86_64... INFO: --> Spec url: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rh-lab-q/rpg/4b321abe5942dd653f7269a6716f0... INFO: Using review directory: /home/maitra/Downloads/mock/1280422-rpg INFO: Downloading .spec and .srpm files INFO: No upstream for (Source0): rpg-0.0.4.tar.gz INFO: Running checks and generating report ERROR: Exception(/home/maitra/Downloads/mock/1280422-rpg/srpm/rpg-0.0.4-1.git.20.4b321ab.fc22.src.rpm) Config(fedora-rawhide-x86_64) 0 minutes 7 seconds INFO: Results and/or logs in: /home/maitra/Downloads/mock/1280422-rpg/results ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output.
Btw, is it ok that your spec file requires python3-rpg? I don't see how this should be got.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1280422
--- Comment #11 from Jan Silhan jsilhan@redhat.com --- I am sorry for delay. Rawhide build fixed and I am providing new links. I am not sure whether the `-b` option in fedora-review will work. Link to spec in comment 2 cannot be invalidated.
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rh-lab-q/rpg/263cc773c25e7ff51271a7b6c4f92...
SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/nightly/rpg/fedora-rawhide-x...
(In reply to Ranjan Maitra from comment #10)
Btw, is it ok that your spec file requires python3-rpg? I don't see how this should be got.
yes, python3-rpg is a subpackage (library) and rpg is the GUI application using this library.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1280422
--- Comment #12 from Ranjan Maitra itsme_410@yahoo.com --- (In reply to Jan Silhan from comment #11)
I am sorry for delay. Rawhide build fixed and I am providing new links. I am not sure whether the `-b` option in fedora-review will work. Link to spec in comment 2 cannot be invalidated.
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rh-lab-q/rpg/ 263cc773c25e7ff51271a7b6c4f921aa82de8279/rpg.spec
SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/nightly/rpg/fedora-rawhide- x86_64/00157917-rpg/rpg-0.0.5-1.git.4.263cc77.fc24.src.rpm
Does this even build? As per fedora-review, using command:
fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1280422
..... INFO: Downloading .spec and .srpm files INFO: No upstream for (Source0): rpg-0.0.5.tar.gz INFO: Running checks and generating report .... ERROR: Exception(/home/mock/Downloads/mock/1280422-rpg/srpm/rpg-0.0.5-1.git.4.263cc77.fc24.src.rpm) Config(fedora-rawhide-x86_64) 0 minutes 0 seconds INFO: Results and/or logs in: /home/mock/Downloads/mock/1280422-rpg/results ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output.
Please try fedora-review on your package before uploading to save everyone some time.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1280422
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zbyszek@in.waw.pl
--- Comment #13 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl --- Ranjan, using fedora-review is optional. The package builds fine in mock, and the error you're seeing is most likely caused by a local issue on your end, e.g. mock confused by a bad mirror. You should try to build the package using mock directly, it'll give you more informative messages. But it's not something that the package submitter can do for you.
OTOH, "No upstream for (Source0): rpg-0.0.5.tar.gz" is a valid complains. A full URL should be used.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1280422
--- Comment #14 from Ranjan Maitra itsme_410@yahoo.com ---
OTOH, "No upstream for (Source0): rpg-0.0.5.tar.gz" is a valid complains. A full URL should be used.
But does this not have to be fixed for the package building to proceed? That is my point.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1280422
--- Comment #15 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl --- The sources are contained in the SRPM, and this is enough to build packages. After the package is approved and imported into dist git, when building in koji the sources are downloaded from the lookaside cache. Either way, this line specifies the place that the sources originally came from, but is not used when building.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1280422
--- Comment #16 from Pavol Vican vican.pavol@gmail.com --- It should be fixed.
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rh-lab-q/rpg/master/rpg.spec
SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/nightly/rpg/fedora-rawhide-x...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1280422
Sergio Monteiro Basto sergio@serjux.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |sergio@serjux.com
--- Comment #17 from Sergio Monteiro Basto sergio@serjux.com --- (In reply to Pavol Vican from comment #16)
It should be fixed.
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rh-lab-q/rpg/master/rpg.spec
SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/nightly/rpg/fedora-rawhide- x86_64/00162843-rpg/rpg-0.0.5-1.git.6.986013d.fc24.src.rpm
Spec URL: https://sergiomb.fedorapeople.org/rpg/rpg.spec SRPM URL: https://sergiomb.fedorapeople.org/rpg/rpg-0.0.5-1.1.fc23.src.rpm
I added this patch : https://sergiomb.fedorapeople.org/rpg/rpg.spec.patch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1280422
--- Comment #18 from Sergio Monteiro Basto sergio@serjux.com --- build fails [1] in F24 and rawhide , but builds on F23 !?!
[1] [100%] Building manpage documentation cd /builddir/build/BUILD/rpg-rpg-0.0.5-1/doc && PYTHONPATH=/builddir/build/BUILD/rpg-rpg-0.0.5-1 sphinx-build-3 -b man /builddir/build/BUILD/rpg-rpg-0.0.5-1/doc /builddir/build/BUILD/rpg-rpg-0.0.5-1/doc Error: source directory and destination directory are same. doc/CMakeFiles/doc-man.dir/build.make:60: recipe for target 'doc/CMakeFiles/doc-man' failed
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org