[Bug 2056369] New: Review Request: python-colcon-alias - Extension for colcon to create and modify command aliases
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056369
Bug ID: 2056369 Summary: Review Request: python-colcon-alias - Extension for colcon to create and modify command aliases Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: logans@cottsay.net QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-colcon-alias/python-colcon-alias.spe... SRPM URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-colcon-alias/python-colcon-alias-0.0...
Description: An extension for colcon-core to create and modify command aliases.
Fedora Account System Username: cottsay Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=83111348 Target branches: rawhide f36 f35 epel8 epel7
This spec file is intended to follow the same pattern as the other 38 `colcon` packages already in Fedora.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056369
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jkadlcik@redhat.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Hello Scott, thank you for the package.
License: ASL 2.0
I don't know if it is required yet but we are moving towards SPDX license names, which would be Apache-2.0 according to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/
I am thinking about whether we should rather use https://github.com/colcon/colcon-alias
I went to the colon.readthedocs.io URL browsed it a little and couldn't find any information about the colcon-alias extension.
%description An extension for colcon-core to create and modify command aliases.
Can you please write 2-3 sentences about the package here? It's not clear to me what it does and how it works.
This spec file is intended to follow the same pattern as the other 38 `colcon` packages already in Fedora.
I wanted to point out a couple of non-standard things in the spec but adhering to the boilerplate of other colcon packages makes a lot of sense and it is IMHO a better idea than nitpicking, so otherwise LGTM.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056369
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jkadlcik@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056369
--- Comment #2 from Scott K Logan logans@cottsay.net --- Thank you very much for the detailed review, Jakub.
I don't know if it is required yet but we are moving towards SPDX license names...
A blog post[1] by Matthew Miller in July indicates that the new identifiers should be used "going forward", however I can't find a documented consensus for dealing with older branches like EPEL 7, or even what qualifies as an "old branch". Given that we haven't switched existing packages to the new identifiers yet, I'm inclined to move forward with the old identifier here to maintain a uniform spec. Another note, it doesn't look like rpmlint fully supports the new identifiers yet either. I am excited for this change, though!
I am thinking about whether we should rather use https://github.com/colcon/colcon-alias
My instinct is typically to follow the maintainer's lead and take the URL directly from the setup.cfg[2]. In this case, I'm the upstream maintainer! Using colcon.readthedocs.io made sense for many of the more "core" extensions that are documented there, but as the ecosystem grows, we will continue to encounter extensions which aren't documented there. I think this request makes sense - and I'll update the setup.cfg as well.
Can you please write 2-3 sentences about the package here?
This is another reasonable request that I should implement upstream in the setup.cfg or README.md and then pull that change in here.
I wanted to point out a couple of non-standard things in the spec but adhering to the boilerplate of other colcon packages makes a lot of sense and it is IMHO a better idea than nitpicking, so otherwise LGTM.
I appreciate this. There are a lot of colcon packages. I intend to update all of the packages to use more modern spec files at some point, but much of that is complicated by maintaining EPEL 7 branches of nearly all of the colcon packages.
Thanks again - I'll implement the URL and description changes and report back when that's been released and updated in this spec.
[1] https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/important-changes-to-software-licens... [2] https://github.com/colcon/colcon-alias/blob/main/setup.cfg#L4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056369
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com ---
Given that we haven't switched existing packages to the new identifiers yet, I'm inclined to move forward with the old identifier here to maintain a uniform spec.
That makes sense, no problem here :-)
however I can't find a documented consensus for dealing with older branches like EPEL 7, or even what qualifies as an "old branch"
Incidentally, I've talked with @msuchy about this and it looks like we will be able to use SPDX even for old branches. But I don't have any more details.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056369
--- Comment #4 from Scott K Logan logans@cottsay.net --- Upstream change was reviewed and merged, and I updated the spec to include a new URL and description.
Spec URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-colcon-alias/python-colcon-alias.spe... SRPM URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-colcon-alias/python-colcon-alias-0.0...
Description: An extension for colcon-core to create and modify command aliases.
Aliases condense any number of colcon command invocations made up of a verb followed by all associated arguments down to another 'alias' verb. When invoking the alias verb, additional arguments can be appended to the original invocations.
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=93803621 Target branches: rawhide f37 f36 f35 epel9 epel8 epel7
Thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056369
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Hello Scott, thank you for the changes.
Release: 1%{?dist}
- Fri Nov 04 2022 Scott K Logan logans@cottsay.net - 0.0.2-2
Looks like you forgot to increment the release number :-)
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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: "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License", "Apache License 2.0". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jkadlcik/2056369-python-colcon-alias/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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]: 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]: 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. [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: [-]: 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. [?]: 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]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/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: 31, packages: 1
python3-colcon-alias.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/colcon_alias-0.0.2-py3.11.egg-info/zip-safe /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/colcon_alias-0.0.2-py3.11.egg-info/dependency_links.txt 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/colcon/colcon-alias/archive/0.0.2/colcon-alias-0.0.2.tar.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : db43a013de3d71a96a22ad4b212a748822082e3bb7093e1ab30b91b9e98b3bd3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : db43a013de3d71a96a22ad4b212a748822082e3bb7093e1ab30b91b9e98b3bd3
Requires -------- python3-colcon-alias (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.11dist(colcon-core) python3.11dist(filelock) python3.11dist(pyyaml)
Provides -------- python3-colcon-alias: python-colcon-alias python3-colcon-alias python3.11-colcon-alias python3.11dist(colcon-alias) python3dist(colcon-alias)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2056369 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: Perl, PHP, R, Java, SugarActivity, C/C++, Haskell, Ocaml, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056369
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056369
Scott K Logan logans@cottsay.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Link ID| |Fedora Pagure | |releng/fedora-scm-requests/ | |issue/48866
--- Comment #6 from Scott K Logan logans@cottsay.net ---
Looks like you forgot to increment the release number :-)
Ah, good catch. I've fixed it locally so the imported package will be correct.
Thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056369
--- Comment #7 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-colcon-alias
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056369
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-e90b080493 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-e90b080493
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056369
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2022-11-07 16:28:28
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-e90b080493 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056369
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-406bd5b5a3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-406bd5b5a3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056369
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-f951710260 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-f951710260
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056369
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-5570990f03 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-5570990f03
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056369
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-f951710260 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-f951710260 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-f951710260
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=2056369
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-07430c3f24 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-07430c3f24 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-07430c3f24
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=2056369
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-5570990f03 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-2022-5570990f03
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=2056369
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-60a6d17dd9 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-2022-60a6d17dd9
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=2056369
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-81289efb63 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-81289efb63
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=2056369
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-406bd5b5a3 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-406bd5b5a3 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-406bd5b5a3
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=2056369
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-f951710260 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056369
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-07430c3f24 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056369
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-5570990f03 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=2056369
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-60a6d17dd9 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=2056369
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-81289efb63 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056369
--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-406bd5b5a3 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com