https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529402
Bug ID: 1529402 Summary: Review Request: python3-docker-pycreds - Python bindings for the docker credentials store API Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: carl@george.computer QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://carlwgeorge.fedorapeople.org/python3-docker-pycreds.spec SRPM URL: https://carlwgeorge.fedorapeople.org/python3-docker-pycreds-0.2.1-1.el7.cent... COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/carlwgeorge/python3-docker-pycreds/ Description: Python bindings for the docker credentials store API Fedora Account System Username: carlwgeorge
This is an EPEL7 only package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529402
--- Comment #1 from Carl George carl@george.computer --- I noticed a minor typo in my changelog.
-* Wed Dec 27 2017 Carl George carl@george.computer 0.2.1-1 +* Wed Dec 27 2017 Carl George carl@george.computer - 0.2.1-2
That doesn't really warrant bumping the release and uploading a new SRPM, but I'll definitely correct it before uploading to distgit.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529402
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Enclose your subpackage like this, otherwise it creates a conflict if python version is 3 and mock/fedora-review can't process the SPEC:
%if %{python3_pkgversion} != 3 %package -n python%{python3_pkgversion}-%{pypi_name} Summary: Python bindings for the docker credentials store API BuildRequires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-devel BuildRequires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-setuptools BuildRequires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-six %if %{with tests} BuildRequires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-pytest %endif # tests Requires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-six
%description -n python%{python3_pkgversion}-%{pypi_name} Python bindings for the docker credentials store API %endif
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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* Apache", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 16 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python3-docker- pycreds/review-python3-docker-pycreds/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: No rpmlint messages. [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 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]: 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. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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 ------- Checking: python3-docker-pycreds-0.2.1-1.el7.centos.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529402
--- Comment #3 from Carl George carl@george.computer ---
Enclose your subpackage like this, otherwise it creates a conflict if python version is 3 and mock/fedora-review can't process the SPEC:
I don't think that is the best approach. It's an EPEL-only spec file that works fine on RHEL/CentOS. The issue you are describing is specific to Fedora. I don't think the spec file should carry extra lines just to make rpmlint happy on an OS that it should never be built for. To parse a spec file like this under Fedora, I think it makes more sense to just use temporary macros definitions.
$ rpmlint python3-docker-pycreds.spec python3-docker-pycreds.spec: E: specfile-error error: Package already exists: %package -n python3-docker-pycreds python3-docker-pycreds.spec: E: specfile-error error: query of specfile python3-docker-pycreds.spec failed, can't parse 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings. $ echo '%python3_pkgversion 34' >> ~/.rpmmacros $ rpmlint python3-docker-pycreds.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ sed -i '/%python3_pkgversion/d' ~/.rpmmacros
For comparison's sake, none of the other EPEL-only python3 spec files for python34 stack contain such a conditional.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529402
--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Some examples of this: python3-pyasn1, python3-mysql, python3-kitchen, python3-cryptography
There seems to be another way: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts:Python3EPEL#Using_.25py3_packa... You probably should use that special macro for python3 packages.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529402
--- Comment #5 from Carl George carl@george.computer --- `%py3_package` doesn't appear to work (or even be defined). That reference link is still a draft; is it possible it's not fully implemented yet?
Sorry, I misspoke earlier, I meant to say none of the spec files I checked had that conditional. This got me curious, so I checked _every_ package with "python3-" in the name and an epel7 branch. Only 7 out of 65 contain the string "%if %{python3_pkgversion} != 3". Since it isn't required (and not particularly common at that), I'd rather not add it to the spec file. Is it a blocker?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529402
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Not a blocker. Package approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529402
--- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python3-docker-pycreds. You may commit to the branch "epel7" in about 10 minutes.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529402
Carl George carl@george.computer changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Component|Package Review |Package Review Version|rawhide |epel7 Product|Fedora |Fedora EPEL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529402
Carl George carl@george.computer changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed| |2018-01-03 09:04:24
--- Comment #8 from Carl George carl@george.computer --- https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/python3-docker-pycreds-0.2.1-1.el7
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org