[Bug 1678233] Review Request: rpm2swidtag - Tools for producing SWID tags from rpm package headers and inspecting the SWID tags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1678233 Jan Pazdziora changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1678454 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1678454 [Bug 1678454] SWID tag enablement -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1678233] Review Request: rpm2swidtag - Tools for producing SWID tags from rpm package headers and inspecting the SWID tags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1678233 Jan Pazdziora changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||rpm2swidtag-0.7.1-1.fc30 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2019-02-18 22:49:21 --- Comment #10 from Jan Pazdziora --- I've made upstream release 0.7.1 and updated to it, we now ship the LICENSE file. Built rpm2swidtag-0.7.1-1.fc30 via https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=32890827. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1678233] Review Request: rpm2swidtag - Tools for producing SWID tags from rpm package headers and inspecting the SWID tags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1678233 --- Comment #9 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rpm2swidtag -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1678233] Review Request: rpm2swidtag - Tools for producing SWID tags from rpm package headers and inspecting the SWID tags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1678233 --- Comment #8 from Jan Pazdziora --- (In reply to Miroslav Suchý from comment #6) > > No. But I will periodically remind it to you. :) That'd be very kind of you. :-P Thank you! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1678233] Review Request: rpm2swidtag - Tools for producing SWID tags from rpm package headers and inspecting the SWID tags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1678233 Miroslav Suchý changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Miroslav Suchý --- APPROVED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1678233] Review Request: rpm2swidtag - Tools for producing SWID tags from rpm package headers and inspecting the SWID tags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1678233 --- Comment #6 from Miroslav Suchý --- > Do you view them as a blocker? No. But I will periodically remind it to you. :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1678233] Review Request: rpm2swidtag - Tools for producing SWID tags from rpm package headers and inspecting the SWID tags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1678233 --- Comment #5 from Jan Pazdziora --- The dependency is there. The man pages will likely take me some time as I'm not quite happy with any of the approaches I tried -- for example, the asciidoc seems to have rather huge set of dependencies. Do you view them as a blocker? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1678233] Review Request: rpm2swidtag - Tools for producing SWID tags from rpm package headers and inspecting the SWID tags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1678233
--- Comment #4 from Miroslav Suchý ---
Whoa, you are fast! :
>Would you envision anything more that the relevant parts from
>https://github.com/swidtags/rpm2swidtag/blob/master/README.md?
Yes.
> What is the recommended way of producing man pages from Markdown, for rpms?
Personally, I use:
BuildRequires: asciidoc
BuildRequires: libxslt
%build
a2x -d manpage -f manpage foo.8.asciidoc
%install
install -m644 foo.8 %{buildroot}/%{_mandir}/man8/
You can see an example here:
https://github.com/xsuchy/fedora-upgrade
The syntax of AsciiDoc:
https://powerman.name/doc/asciidoc
> Not sure if it's better to add the dependency on just add my ownership on
> that file (or move the swidq.conf to something like /etc/swidq/ altogether).
Personally, I would add the dependency. But all other solutions you mentioned
are fine too.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1678233] Review Request: rpm2swidtag - Tools for producing SWID tags from rpm package headers and inspecting the SWID tags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1678233
Jan Pazdziora changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jpazdzi...@redhat.com
--- Comment #3 from Jan Pazdziora ---
(In reply to Miroslav Suchý from comment #2)
> > %define unmangled_version 0.6.5
> > %define unmangled_version 0.6.5
>
> Any reason to define it twice?
>
> > %define name rpm2swidtag
> > %define version 0.6.5
> > %define release 1%{dist}
>
> Any reason to define them when it is not used? BTW every tag will define a
> corresponding macro. So Name will define %name. So this has no use because
> it is overridden by a tag below.
No, these should go -- it's a leftover from the original setup.py-generated
spec that I missed.
> > Summary: Tools for producing SWID tags from rpm package headers and
> > inspecting the SWID tags
>
> The summary should be shorter than 80 characters. Can you try to make it a
> bit shorter?
Sure, will make it into
Tools for producing SWID tags for rpm packages and inspecting the SWID tags
> > Release: 1%{dist}
>
> This should be `1%{?dist}` so it produces valid output in case of dist macro
> is not defined.
Fixed.
> > Group: Development/Libraries
>
> This tag has no use and it should be removed.
Removed.
> > BuildRequires: fakeroot
>
> It would be nice if you can separate aside - with a comment - the
> buildrequires which are needed only for %check section.
OK. The only "real" BuildRequires are python3-setuptools and
python3-rpm-macros, it seems.
> > %package -n dnf-plugin-swidtags
>
> I would advise putting "Recommend: dnf" in this sub-package.
OK.
> > %clean
> > rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
>
> This section is not used nowadays and should be removed entirely.
OK.
>
> > --root=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
>
> Use macros consistently. Either old style or the new style. I recommend to
> use `--root=%{buildroot}`
OK.
> > # %license LICENSE
>
> Any reason why LICENSE is not included in tar ball? Especially when you are
> upstream as well?
Because with the 0.6.5 upstream release, the LICENSE is not packages in the
.tar.gz. Fix for that is in https://github.com/swidtags/rpm2swidtag master but
I'm waiting for one more thing from the rpm team to make a new release. By that
time I plan to uncomment this line.
> You are missing
> %dir %{_sysconfdir}/%{name}
> in %files.
Fixed.
> Who owns `%{_sysconfdir}/swid/` and `/usr/share/swidq` ? Hint - it should be
> either you or some your dependency.
# rpm -qf /etc/swid
fedora-release-common-30-0.21.noarch
Not sure if it's better to add the dependency on just add my ownership on that
file (or move the swidq.conf to something like /etc/swidq/ altogether).
> > %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/%{name}/%{name}.conf.d
>
> You probably meant:
>
> %dir %{_sysconfdir}/%{name}/%{name}.conf.d
> %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/%{name}/%{name}.conf.d/*
True.
> > %{_bindir}/rpm2swidtag
> > %{_bindir}/swidq
>
> It would be really nice if you can write a man page for these two.
Would you envision anything more that the relevant parts from
https://github.com/swidtags/rpm2swidtag/blob/master/README.md? What is the
recommended way of producing man pages from Markdown, for rpms?
> You are missing a %changelog section.
Will be added.
> All python modules should BuildRequire python3-devel
OK. That would then be the only non-test BuildRequire.
> > %{__python3} setup.py build
>
> You should use %py3_build macro.
Fixed.
> > %{__python3} setup.py install --single-version-externally-managed
> > --single-version-externally-managed -O1 --root=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> > --record=INSTALLED_FILES
>
> You should use %py3_install plus some custom option if needed.
Fixed.
I've now updated https://adelton.fedorapeople.org/rpm2swidtag.spec based on the
review, except for the man pages.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1678233] Review Request: rpm2swidtag - Tools for producing SWID tags from rpm package headers and inspecting the SWID tags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1678233
--- Comment #2 from Miroslav Suchý ---
> %define unmangled_version 0.6.5
> %define unmangled_version 0.6.5
Any reason to define it twice?
> %define name rpm2swidtag
> %define version 0.6.5
> %define release 1%{dist}
Any reason to define them when it is not used? BTW every tag will define a
corresponding macro. So Name will define %name. So this has no use because it
is overridden by a tag below.
> Summary: Tools for producing SWID tags from rpm package headers and
> inspecting the SWID tags
The summary should be shorter than 80 characters. Can you try to make it a bit
shorter?
> Release: 1%{dist}
This should be `1%{?dist}` so it produces valid output in case of dist macro is
not defined.
> Group: Development/Libraries
This tag has no use and it should be removed.
> BuildRequires: fakeroot
It would be nice if you can separate aside - with a comment - the buildrequires
which are needed only for %check section.
> %package -n dnf-plugin-swidtags
I would advise putting "Recommend: dnf" in this sub-package.
> %clean
> rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
This section is not used nowadays and should be removed entirely.
> --root=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Use macros consistently. Either old style or the new style. I recommend to use
`--root=%{buildroot}`
> # %license LICENSE
Any reason why LICENSE is not included in tar ball? Especially when you are
upstream as well?
You are missing
%dir %{_sysconfdir}/%{name}
in %files.
Who owns `%{_sysconfdir}/swid/` and `/usr/share/swidq` ? Hint - it should be
either you or some your dependency.
> %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/%{name}/%{name}.conf.d
You probably meant:
%dir %{_sysconfdir}/%{name}/%{name}.conf.d
%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/%{name}/%{name}.conf.d/*
> %{_bindir}/rpm2swidtag
> %{_bindir}/swidq
It would be really nice if you can write a man page for these two.
You are missing a %changelog section.
All python modules should BuildRequire python3-devel
> %{__python3} setup.py build
You should use %py3_build macro.
> %{__python3} setup.py install --single-version-externally-managed
> --single-version-externally-managed -O1 --root=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> --record=INSTALLED_FILES
You should use %py3_install plus some custom option if needed.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1678233] Review Request: rpm2swidtag - Tools for producing SWID tags from rpm package headers and inspecting the SWID tags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1678233 Miroslav Suchý changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||msu...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|msu...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Miroslav Suchý --- I will do the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
