[Bug 1259061] New: Review request: python-securepass - SecurePass Python library & tools

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259061

Bug ID: 1259061
           Summary: Review request: python-securepass - SecurePass Python
                    library & tools
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
         Component: Package Review
          Assignee: [e-mail]
          Reporter: [e-mail]
        QA Contact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail]
            Blocks: 177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)

Spec URL: https://gpaterno.fedorapeople.org/python-securepass.spec
SRPM URL:
https://gpaterno.fedorapeople.org/python-securepass-0.4.2-1.el6.src.rpm

Description: 
The tools and python libraries for accessing SecurePass platform.
It uses the SecurePass public APIs.

Fedora Account System Username: gpaterno

The package is linked somehow to the NSS/PAM modules that are filed in the
bugzilla request 1162234.

The SPEC file defines a subpackage, as a matter of fact the binaries that comes
out of the python egg are split in a separate package.

Please help me reviewing the package.

Note: the subpackage "securepass-tools" produces an rpmlint warning because "
devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/sp-config". sp-config is not actually
a development package, but rather a config facility for kickstart or
cloud-init.

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor

[Bug 1259061] Review request: python-securepass - SecurePass Python library & tools

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259061

Parag AN(पराग)  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
           Assignee|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]

--- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
Sorry I am busy very much and will take some more time to check this package.
you can till then do some package reviews.

[Bug 1259061] Review request: python-securepass - SecurePass Python library & tools

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259061

--- Comment #2 from Giuseppe Paterno'  ---
Thanks Parag!
In the meanwhile, new SPEC/SRPMS:

SPEC URL: https://gpaterno.fedorapeople.org/python-securepass.spec
SRPMS URL:
https://gpaterno.fedorapeople.org/python-securepass-0.4.3-2.el6.src.rpm

[Bug 1259061] Review request: python-securepass - SecurePass Python library & tools

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259061

--- Comment #3 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
Hi, If you run fedora-review tool on this review bugzilla you will see
review.txt output from it showing

Issues:
=======
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel

=> You need to specify for which version of python you are building package. I
see on upstream that there is no information if the module is dual compatible
that mean same code can be run under python2 or python3 environment. So, Let's
take default that upstream code is python2 code. You may want to ask upstream
if existing code supports python3 as well.

We are soon moving to python3 as default so all python module should start
providing python3 subpackages as well.

You can fix this for now as
BuildRequires: python2-devel

- Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros

=> Use only one style and not to mix it.

- 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 is marked as %doc instead of %license
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text

==> This is okay as it looks you want your package to be built for EPEL6 also.

There are other issues in the spec that need to be cleaned. See more
information for those on  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging

1) Spec file contains Buildroot tag which is not needed now. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#BuildRoot_tag , remove it form
spec

2) You also don;t need Group tag. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#Group_tag
remove it from spec file.

3) You also don't need to specify in spec file
[ "%{buildroot}" != "/" ] && rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

remove this line. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#Prepping_BuildRoot_For_.25inst...

4) prefix macro is not needed as install already using it as /usr

5) You don't need %clean section at all, its optional, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#Cleaning_BuildRoot_in_.25clean

6) Then you created subpackage securepass-tools but written it below %build and
%install. You should have written all subpackages before %prep section

Move following lines just before %prep section
=====================================================
%package -n securepass-tools
Requires:   python-securepass
Summary:    SecurePass Tools

%description -n securepass-tools
The official tools for accessing SecurePass platform.

It uses the SecurePass public APIs.
=====================================================

7) we have macros for /usr/bin why not to use it?
change
%{_usr}/bin/*
to
%{_bindir}/*

See more on this https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:RPMMacros

8) securepass-tools subpackage needs securepass library at runtime so add
following to %package section of securepass-tools package

Requires: python-securepass

9) You need to follow python packaging guidelines as well.

a) For that you should use specific python version macros. e.g.
%build
%{__python} setup.py build

%install
%{__python} setup.py install --skip-build --root="%{buildroot}"

Should be written as
%build
%{__python2} setup.py build

%install
%{__python2} setup.py install --skip-build --root %{buildroot}

b) If you want to build this package for EPEL6 as well then add following lines
at top of spec file
==================================================
%if 0%{?rhel} && 0%{?rhel} <= 6
%{!?__python2: %global __python2 /usr/bin/python2}
%{!?python2_sitelib: %global python2_sitelib %(%{__python2} -c "from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib())")}
%{!?python2_sitearch: %global python2_sitearch %(%{__python2} -c "from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib(1))")}
%endif
=================================================

This is as per given on
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Old#Macros

I suppose there can be few more issues in this package but for now please fix
above and submit a new SPEC and SRPM by increasing release number and adding
relevant changelog.

You should also read all requires Guidelines pages like 
1) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging
2) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Old
3) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines

[Bug 1259061] Review request: python-securepass - SecurePass Python library & tools

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259061

--- Comment #4 from Giuseppe Paterno'  ---
Hi! 
Yes, you're right, we're also building for EPEL6 as most of the cloud instances
are still on CentOS/RHEL 6.

I tried to fix what you requested.
Sources are not fully ready for python3, but we are working on that, we will
stick to python2 until ready to do so.

SPEC URL: https://gpaterno.fedorapeople.org/python-securepass.spec
SRPMS URL:
https://gpaterno.fedorapeople.org/python-securepass-0.4.3-3.el6.src.rpm

Thanks

[Bug 1259061] Review request: python-securepass - SecurePass Python library & tools

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259061

--- Comment #5 from Giuseppe Paterno'  ---
Apologies, I ran fedora-review and I noticed some errors.

SPEC URL: https://gpaterno.fedorapeople.org/python-securepass.spec
SRPMS URL:
https://gpaterno.fedorapeople.org/python-securepass-0.4.3-4.el6.src.rpm

Thanks

[Bug 1259061] Review request: python-securepass - SecurePass Python library & tools

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259061

--- Comment #6 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
1) I see scratch build for EPEL6 succeed after removing defattr(-,root,root,-)
so remove that also.
See http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11191125

2) As tools are sub-packaged, you can remove tools word from description of
main package that is
from
The tools and python libraries for accessing SecurePass platform.
to
The python library for accessing SecurePass platform.

3) BuildRequires: python-pycurl is not needed as its runtime dependency only.

4) Last, this package need to follow
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Commit_Revision

Add following just before Name: tag
%global commit0 5fe6a702d5b5f66c1dae4e240bd4c823e82ff5bc
%global shortcommit0 %(c=%{commit0}; echo ${c:0:7})

Then your Source0 will become as
Source0:       
https://github.com/garlsecurity/securepass-tools/archive/%%7Bcommit0%7D.tar....

then last change required is in %prep
%setup -qn securepass-tools-%{commit0}

For your easiness I have fixed above issues and new spec is at
https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/python-securepass.spec
just add changelog.

[Bug 1259061] Review request: python-securepass - SecurePass Python library & tools

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259061

--- Comment #7 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
Please ignore point 4 above and fix remaining 3 issues. The reason I am asking
to ignore point 4 above is based on guideline "If the upstream does create
tarballs you should use them as tarballs provide an easier trail for people
auditing the packages." in
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Git_Hosting_Services

Also I found new upstream release 0.4.4 , update your package to this release.

[Bug 1259061] Review request: python-securepass - SecurePass Python library & tools

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259061

Parag AN(पराग)  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |CLOSED
             Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)     |
         Resolution|---                         |DEFERRED
        Last Closed|                            |2016-08-01 03:33:03

--- Comment #8 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
No progress since last 10 months. Closing, reopen when you back with the
updated srpm here.

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor