https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2293067
Bug ID: 2293067 Summary: Review Request: dist-git-client - Get sources for RPM builds from DistGit repositories Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: praiskup@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/praiskup/review-dist-git-... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/praiskup/review-dist-git-... Description: A simple, configurable python utility that is able to clone package sources from a DistGit repository, download sources from the corresponding lookaside cache locations, and generate source RPMs.
The utility is able to automatically map the .git/config clone URL into the corresponding DistGit instance configuration.
Fedora Account System Username: praiskup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2293067
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/release- | |engineering/dist-git.git
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7627504 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2293067
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jkadlcik@redhat.com
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com ---
Issues:
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
For some reason, Fedora Review Service didn't pick up on this. Every Python package needs to depend on python3-devel.
argparse-manpage --pyfile dist_git_client.py \ --function _get_argparser \ --author "Copr Team" \ --author-email "copr-team@redhat.com" \ --url %url --project-name Copr \
This should probably happen during the %build phase
%_bindir/dist-git-client %_mandir/man1/dist-git-client.1* %dir %_sysconfdir/dist-git-client %config %_sysconfdir/dist-git-client/default.ini %python3_sitelib/dist_git_client.* %python3_sitelib/__pycache__/dist_git_client*
There is a small inconsistency with the macro syntax. Here you are using %foo and in the previous sections %{foo}
Otherwise LGTM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2293067
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jkadlcik@redhat.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2293067
--- Comment #3 from Pavel Raiskup praiskup@redhat.com --- Thanks for looking!
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/praiskup/review-dist-git-... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/praiskup/review-dist-git-...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2293067
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2037921 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2037921&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 7627504 to 7642264
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2293067
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7642264 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2293067
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/dist-git-client/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/man/man1, /usr/share/doc, /usr/share/licenses, /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/__pycache__, /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages, /usr/share/man, /usr/lib, /usr, /etc, /usr/share, /usr/lib/python3.13, /usr/bin [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/man/man1, /usr/share/doc, /usr/share/licenses, /usr/lib/python3.13/site- packages/__pycache__, /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages, /usr/share/man, /usr/lib, /usr, /etc, /usr/share, /usr/lib/python3.13, /usr/bin [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. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 3285 bytes in 1 files. [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]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [?]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: 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: No rpmlint messages.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: dist-git-client-1.0-2.fc41.noarch.rpm dist-git-client-1.0-2.fc41.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpsbov6wq1')] checks: 32, packages: 2
dist-git-client.noarch: E: spelling-error ('lookaside', '%description -l en_US lookaside -> look aside, look-aside, lookalike') dist-git-client.src: E: spelling-error ('lookaside', '%description -l en_US lookaside -> look aside, look-aside, lookalike') dist-git-client.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: dist-git-client-1.0.tar.gz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 9 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.3 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "dist-git-client". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1
0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Requires -------- dist-git-client (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/git /usr/bin/python3 config(dist-git-client) curl python(abi) python3-rpmautospec
Provides -------- dist-git-client: config(dist-git-client) dist-git-client
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name dist-git-client --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, PHP, Java, Ocaml, Perl, SugarActivity, Haskell, R, C/C++ Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2293067
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/dist-git-client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2293067
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-996166887c (dist-git-client-1.0-2.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-996166887c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2293067
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2024-06-21 10:32:27
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-996166887c (dist-git-client-1.0-2.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2293067
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2024-5d272d0910 (dist-git-client (new-package)) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-5d272d0910
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2293067
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-da422b9f07 (dist-git-client (new-package)) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-da422b9f07
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2293067
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-da422b9f07 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-da422b9f07 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-da422b9f07
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2293067
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2024-5d272d0910 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-5d272d0910
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2293067
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2024-c04f6b5dbd has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-c04f6b5dbd
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2293067
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-c185bbb3df has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-c185bbb3df *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-c185bbb3df
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2293067
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2024-5d272d0910 (dist-git-client (new-package)) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2293067
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2024-c04f6b5dbd (dist-git-client (new-package)) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2293067
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-da422b9f07 (dist-git-client (new-package)) has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2293067
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-c185bbb3df (dist-git-client (new-package)) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org