[Bug 1195279] Review Request: preupgrade-assistant - Preupgrade assistant a tool for assess system before an upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195279 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA --- Comment #34 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- preupgrade-assistant-0.11.7-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195279] Review Request: preupgrade-assistant - Preupgrade assistant a tool for assess system before an upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195279 Petr Hracek phra...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||preupgrade-assistant-0.11.7 ||-1.fc22 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2015-03-09 04:13:46 --- Comment #32 from Petr Hracek phra...@redhat.com --- scm-commits rawhide: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/scm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20150309/1534131.html scm-commits F22: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/scm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20150309/1534138.html -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195279] Review Request: preupgrade-assistant - Preupgrade assistant a tool for assess system before an upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195279 --- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- preupgrade-assistant-0.11.7-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/preupgrade-assistant-0.11.7-1.fc22 -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195279] Review Request: preupgrade-assistant - Preupgrade assistant a tool for assess system before an upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195279 --- Comment #30 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- Typo;) New Package SCM Request === Package Name: preupgrade-assistant Short Description: A tool to assess system before an upgrade Upstream URL: https://github.com/phracek/preupgrade-assistant Owners: phracek Branches: f22 -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195279] Review Request: preupgrade-assistant - Preupgrade assistant a tool for assess system before an upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195279 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195279] Review Request: preupgrade-assistant - Preupgrade assistant a tool for assess system before an upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195279 --- Comment #31 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195279] Review Request: preupgrade-assistant - Preupgrade assistant a tool for assess system before an upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195279 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #28 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- fedora-review has nothing interesting to say, except preupgrade-assistant.src:174: W: macro-in-%changelog %license Rpmlint --- Checking: preupgrade-assistant-0.11.7-6.fc23.noarch.rpm preupgrade-assistant-0.11.7-6.fc23.src.rpm preupgrade-assistant.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US upgradeability - upgrade ability, upgrade-ability, biodegradability preupgrade-assistant.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US inplace - in place, in-place, Laplace preupgrade-assistant.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US postupgrade - post upgrade, post-upgrade, postgraduate preupgrade-assistant.noarch: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/preupgrade preupgrade-assistant.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary preupg-create-group-xml preupgrade-assistant.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary preupg-xccdf-compose preupgrade-assistant.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US upgradeability - upgrade ability, upgrade-ability, biodegradability preupgrade-assistant.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US inplace - in place, in-place, Laplace preupgrade-assistant.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US postupgrade - post upgrade, post-upgrade, postgraduate preupgrade-assistant.src:175: W: macro-in-%changelog %license 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. Requires preupgrade-assistant (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash /usr/bin/python3 bash coreutils findutils gawk grep openscap openscap-engine-sce openscap-utils python(abi) python3-kickstart python3-requests python3-setuptools python3-six rpm-python3 sed Provides preupgrade-assistant: preupgrade-assistant Package is 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195279] Review Request: preupgrade-assistant - Preupgrade assistant a tool for assess system before an upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195279 Petr Hracek phra...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #29 from Petr Hracek phra...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: preupgrade-assistant Short Description: Preupgrade assistant a tool for assess system before an upgrade Upstream URL: https://github.com/phracek/preupgrade-assistant Owners: phracek Branches: f22 -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195279] Review Request: preupgrade-assistant - Preupgrade assistant a tool for assess system before an upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195279
--- Comment #27 from Petr Hracek phra...@redhat.com ---
Final URLs:
Spec URL: https://phracek.fedorapeople.org/preupgrade-assistant.spec
SRPM URL:
https://phracek.fedorapeople.org/preupgrade-assistant-0.11.7-6.fc21.src.rpm
Hopefully review is finally finished.
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #26)
Ah, OK, fedora-review was confused because the link to the previous version
is quoted below your latest link. *I* was confused because you forgot to
update the spec file :). But I can pull it out of the srpm.
In macros:
%preupgrade_name Fedora%{preupg_number}_%postupg_number
%preupgrade_dir /usr/share/preupgrade/%fedora_preupgrade_name ← name does
not match
Fixed
Requires: openscap%{?_isa} = 0:1.0.8-1
...
Fixed
Why %{?_isa}? This would make this package arch-dependent, and should be
dropped from all Requires.
Packaging Guidelines currently forbid using %{_isa} in BR. There's a ticket
open to relax this, but in this case I don't think there's any benefit to
having it, so those should be dropped too.
For Fedora system modified so that only first sentence can be mentioned,
though.
I still see the old text.
Fixed
= 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:
Unknown or generated. 41 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of
licensecheck in /var/tmp/review-preupgrade-assistant/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
[!]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
%doc %{_datadir}/preupgrade/README.kickstart ← remove %doc
%doc %{_datadir}/preupgrade/README ← remove %doc
Also:
%dir %{_docdir}/preupgrade ← add %doc here, otherwise
the directory would be created even if package is installed without doc
files.
%doc %{_docdir}/preupgrade/README
Fixed
[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.
[ ]: 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]: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist
[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
[ ]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
BR: python-devel should be
[Bug 1195279] Review Request: preupgrade-assistant - Preupgrade assistant a tool for assess system before an upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195279
--- Comment #23 from Petr Hracek phra...@redhat.com ---
Spec URL: https://phracek.fedorapeople.org/preupgrade-assistant.spec
SRPM URL:
https://phracek.fedorapeople.org/preupgrade-assistant-0.11.7-5.fc21.src.rpm
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #22)
(In reply to Petr Hracek from comment #21)
Spec URL: https://phracek.fedorapeople.org/preupgrade-assistant.spec
SRPM URL:
https://phracek.fedorapeople.org/preupgrade-assistant-0.11.7-4.fc21.src.rpm
It seems that the problem from comment #c3 has resurfaced. In F23 mock:
running build_ext
Traceback (most recent call last):
File setup.py, line 61, in module
test_suite = 'tests.suite',
File /usr/lib64/python3.4/distutils/core.py, line 148, in setup
dist.run_commands()
File /usr/lib64/python3.4/distutils/dist.py, line 955, in run_commands
self.run_command(cmd)
File /usr/lib64/python3.4/distutils/dist.py, line 974, in run_command
cmd_obj.run()
File /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/setuptools/command/test.py, line
142, in run
self.with_project_on_sys_path(self.run_tests)
File /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/setuptools/command/test.py, line
122, in with_project_on_sys_path
func()
File /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/setuptools/command/test.py, line
163, in run_tests
testRunner=self._resolve_as_ep(self.test_runner),
File /usr/lib64/python3.4/unittest/main.py, line 92, in __init__
self.parseArgs(argv)
File /usr/lib64/python3.4/unittest/main.py, line 139, in parseArgs
self.createTests()
File /usr/lib64/python3.4/unittest/main.py, line 146, in createTests
self.module)
File /usr/lib64/python3.4/unittest/loader.py, line 146, in
loadTestsFromNames
suites = [self.loadTestsFromName(name, module) for name in names]
File /usr/lib64/python3.4/unittest/loader.py, line 146, in listcomp
suites = [self.loadTestsFromName(name, module) for name in names]
File /usr/lib64/python3.4/unittest/loader.py, line 105, in
loadTestsFromName
module = __import__('.'.join(parts_copy))
File
/builddir/build/BUILD/preupgrade-assistant-0.11.7/tests/__init__.py, line
2, in module
from tests import test_preup
File
/builddir/build/BUILD/preupgrade-assistant-0.11.7/tests/test_preup.py,
line 6, in module
from preup.application import Application
File
/builddir/build/BUILD/preupgrade-assistant-0.11.7/preup/application.py,
line 18, in module
from preuputils.compose import XCCDFCompose
File
/builddir/build/BUILD/preupgrade-assistant-0.11.7/preuputils/compose.py,
line 12, in module
from preuputils.oscap_group_xml import OscapGroupXml
File
/builddir/build/BUILD/preupgrade-assistant-0.11.7/preuputils/
oscap_group_xml.py, line 13, in module
from preuputils.xml_utils import print_error_msg, XmlUtils
File
/builddir/build/BUILD/preupgrade-assistant-0.11.7/preuputils/xml_utils.py,
line 11, in module
from preuputils import script_utils
File
/builddir/build/BUILD/preupgrade-assistant-0.11.7/preuputils/script_utils.
py, line 6, in module
import xml_utils
ImportError: No module named 'xml_utils'
Fixed with a bunch of fixes for F23 too.
Mock builds on F22 and F23 works. Finally:)
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #20)
- Why BR:pykickstart R:pykickstart in F23?
You are right python3-kickstart should require pykickstart in F23
Are you sure? The only reason to do that would be if python3-kickstart
called binaries (ksflatten, ksshell, ksvalidator, ksverdiff) provided by
pykickstart.
In F23 pykickstart requires python3-pykickstart based from pykickstart.spec
Therefore only python3-kickstart is needed.
Fixed.
The reason for my original question was that this dependency seems spurious
since pykickstart is for Python2, and preupgrade-asistant is running under
Python3 in F23. In the spec file I see you moved R/BR:pykicstart underneath
%if 0%{?fedora} == 22, so this seems fine now.
- preupgrade-assistant.rpm has an empty /usr/share/doc/preupgrade
directory
and README files are in /usr/share/preupgrade.
README is in /usr/share/doc/preupgrade directory.
README file should be in both directories. The file is copied to
/root/preupgrade/ directory after an assessment.
User can see after a upgrade/migration what results mean.
But I will corrected it after package review so that only one README file is
enough.
I think it is fine as is. You have to be careful here because of the rule
that packages cannot require anything in %doc at runtime. So having two
copies of this very small file is probably the best option.
- Looking at the first message:
The Preupgrade Assistant is a diagnostics tool
and does not perform the actual upgrade.
Make sure you back up your system and all of your data now,
before using the Upgrade Tool to avoid potential data loss.
Do you want to continue? y/n
[Bug 1195279] Review Request: preupgrade-assistant - Preupgrade assistant a tool for assess system before an upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195279
--- Comment #26 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl ---
Ah, OK, fedora-review was confused because the link to the previous version is
quoted below your latest link. *I* was confused because you forgot to update
the spec file :). But I can pull it out of the srpm.
In macros:
%preupgrade_name Fedora%{preupg_number}_%postupg_number
%preupgrade_dir /usr/share/preupgrade/%fedora_preupgrade_name ← name does not
match
Requires: openscap%{?_isa} = 0:1.0.8-1
...
Why %{?_isa}? This would make this package arch-dependent, and should be
dropped from all Requires.
Packaging Guidelines currently forbid using %{_isa} in BR. There's a ticket
open to relax this, but in this case I don't think there's any benefit to
having it, so those should be dropped too.
For Fedora system modified so that only first sentence can be mentioned,
though.
I still see the old text.
= 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:
Unknown or generated. 41 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /var/tmp/review-preupgrade-assistant/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
[!]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
%doc %{_datadir}/preupgrade/README.kickstart ← remove %doc
%doc %{_datadir}/preupgrade/README ← remove %doc
Also:
%dir %{_docdir}/preupgrade ← add %doc here, otherwise the
directory would be created even if package is installed without doc files.
%doc %{_docdir}/preupgrade/README
[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.
[ ]: 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]: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist
[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
[ ]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
BR: python-devel should be changed to python2-devel.
[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
[Bug 1195279] Review Request: preupgrade-assistant - Preupgrade assistant a tool for assess system before an upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195279 --- Comment #24 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- I think you didn't upload a new version of the spec and srpm. srpm returns 404. -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195279] Review Request: preupgrade-assistant - Preupgrade assistant a tool for assess system before an upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195279 --- Comment #25 from Petr Hracek phra...@redhat.com --- All works fine. I am able to download them. Could you please repeat it? -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195279] Review Request: preupgrade-assistant - Preupgrade assistant a tool for assess system before an upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195279
--- Comment #22 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl ---
(In reply to Petr Hracek from comment #21)
Spec URL: https://phracek.fedorapeople.org/preupgrade-assistant.spec
SRPM URL:
https://phracek.fedorapeople.org/preupgrade-assistant-0.11.7-4.fc21.src.rpm
It seems that the problem from comment #c3 has resurfaced. In F23 mock:
running build_ext
Traceback (most recent call last):
File setup.py, line 61, in module
test_suite = 'tests.suite',
File /usr/lib64/python3.4/distutils/core.py, line 148, in setup
dist.run_commands()
File /usr/lib64/python3.4/distutils/dist.py, line 955, in run_commands
self.run_command(cmd)
File /usr/lib64/python3.4/distutils/dist.py, line 974, in run_command
cmd_obj.run()
File /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/setuptools/command/test.py, line 142,
in run
self.with_project_on_sys_path(self.run_tests)
File /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/setuptools/command/test.py, line 122,
in with_project_on_sys_path
func()
File /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/setuptools/command/test.py, line 163,
in run_tests
testRunner=self._resolve_as_ep(self.test_runner),
File /usr/lib64/python3.4/unittest/main.py, line 92, in __init__
self.parseArgs(argv)
File /usr/lib64/python3.4/unittest/main.py, line 139, in parseArgs
self.createTests()
File /usr/lib64/python3.4/unittest/main.py, line 146, in createTests
self.module)
File /usr/lib64/python3.4/unittest/loader.py, line 146, in
loadTestsFromNames
suites = [self.loadTestsFromName(name, module) for name in names]
File /usr/lib64/python3.4/unittest/loader.py, line 146, in listcomp
suites = [self.loadTestsFromName(name, module) for name in names]
File /usr/lib64/python3.4/unittest/loader.py, line 105, in
loadTestsFromName
module = __import__('.'.join(parts_copy))
File /builddir/build/BUILD/preupgrade-assistant-0.11.7/tests/__init__.py,
line 2, in module
from tests import test_preup
File /builddir/build/BUILD/preupgrade-assistant-0.11.7/tests/test_preup.py,
line 6, in module
from preup.application import Application
File
/builddir/build/BUILD/preupgrade-assistant-0.11.7/preup/application.py, line
18, in module
from preuputils.compose import XCCDFCompose
File
/builddir/build/BUILD/preupgrade-assistant-0.11.7/preuputils/compose.py, line
12, in module
from preuputils.oscap_group_xml import OscapGroupXml
File
/builddir/build/BUILD/preupgrade-assistant-0.11.7/preuputils/oscap_group_xml.py,
line 13, in module
from preuputils.xml_utils import print_error_msg, XmlUtils
File
/builddir/build/BUILD/preupgrade-assistant-0.11.7/preuputils/xml_utils.py,
line 11, in module
from preuputils import script_utils
File
/builddir/build/BUILD/preupgrade-assistant-0.11.7/preuputils/script_utils.py,
line 6, in module
import xml_utils
ImportError: No module named 'xml_utils'
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #20)
- Why BR:pykickstart R:pykickstart in F23?
You are right python3-kickstart should require pykickstart in F23
Are you sure? The only reason to do that would be if python3-kickstart called
binaries (ksflatten, ksshell, ksvalidator, ksverdiff) provided by pykickstart.
The reason for my original question was that this dependency seems spurious
since pykickstart is for Python2, and preupgrade-asistant is running under
Python3 in F23. In the spec file I see you moved R/BR:pykicstart underneath %if
0%{?fedora} == 22, so this seems fine now.
- preupgrade-assistant.rpm has an empty /usr/share/doc/preupgrade directory
and README files are in /usr/share/preupgrade.
README is in /usr/share/doc/preupgrade directory.
README file should be in both directories. The file is copied to
/root/preupgrade/ directory after an assessment.
User can see after a upgrade/migration what results mean.
But I will corrected it after package review so that only one README file is
enough.
I think it is fine as is. You have to be careful here because of the rule that
packages cannot require anything in %doc at runtime. So having two copies of
this very small file is probably the best option.
- Looking at the first message:
The Preupgrade Assistant is a diagnostics tool
and does not perform the actual upgrade.
Make sure you back up your system and all of your data now,
before using the Upgrade Tool to avoid potential data loss.
Do you want to continue? y/n
If it is only a diagnostic tool, why is it unsafe to run?
Also, why does it require root privileges? Isn't the RPM database public?
We need to have a access to all files and directories. Root access is really
needed. Some data are accessible only under root account.
OK, so it needs to run as root. By why the scary warning?
- In the man page: All common log files are stored in
/var/cache/preupgrade/common. Isn't /var/log/preupgrade used?
Those directories are different.
- /var/log/preupgrade directory
[Bug 1195279] Review Request: preupgrade-assistant - Preupgrade assistant a tool for assess system before an upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195279 --- Comment #19 from Petr Hracek phra...@redhat.com --- New files are available: Spec URL: https://phracek.fedorapeople.org/preupgrade-assistant.spec SRPM URL: https://phracek.fedorapeople.org/preupgrade-assistant-0.11.7-3.fc21.src.rpm -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195279] Review Request: preupgrade-assistant - Preupgrade assistant a tool for assess system before an upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195279
--- Comment #21 from Petr Hracek phra...@redhat.com ---
Spec URL: https://phracek.fedorapeople.org/preupgrade-assistant.spec
SRPM URL:
https://phracek.fedorapeople.org/preupgrade-assistant-0.11.7-4.fc21.src.rpm
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #20)
- Why BR:pykickstart R:pykickstart in F23?
You are right python3-kickstart should require pykickstart in F23
- Can you add %check back?
Done
- Why the extra directory level in
%{_rpmconfigdir}/macros.d/macros.preupgrade-assistant/macros.preupgrade-
assistant? I don't see other packages doing this.
Typo
- %preupgrade_build is defined to the old name /usr/bin/create_group_xml.
Fixed
- preupgrade-assistant.rpm has an empty /usr/share/doc/preupgrade directory
and README files are in /usr/share/preupgrade.
README is in /usr/share/doc/preupgrade directory.
README file should be in both directories. The file is copied to
/root/preupgrade/ directory after an assessment.
User can see after a upgrade/migration what results mean.
But I will corrected it after package review so that only one README file is
enough.
- I installed the rpm on F21. /usr/bin/preupg fails with:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File /usr/bin/preupg, line 8, in module
from preup.application import Application
File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/preup/application.py, line 18, in
module
from preuputils.compose import XCCDFCompose
ImportError: No module named preuputils.compose
Installing also -devel subpackage fixes that. Maybe you should merge -devel
back into the main package. They are both really tiny, so the split is
probably not worth the trouble.
Merged
- Looking at the first message:
The Preupgrade Assistant is a diagnostics tool
and does not perform the actual upgrade.
Make sure you back up your system and all of your data now,
before using the Upgrade Tool to avoid potential data loss.
Do you want to continue? y/n
If it is only a diagnostic tool, why is it unsafe to run?
Also, why does it require root privileges? Isn't the RPM database public?
We need to have a access to all files and directories. Root access is really
needed. Some data are accessible only under root account.
- In the man page: All common log files are stored in
/var/cache/preupgrade/common. Isn't /var/log/preupgrade used?
Those directories are different.
- /var/log/preupgrade directory is used for logs generated by
preupgrade-assistant itself as a program
- /var/cache/preupgrade/common directory contains special files used by
contents
- This package seems useless without preupgrade-assistant-contents. Is this
available somewhere?
Draft for Packaging Guidelines is already finished
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Phracek/Draft:Packaging:PreupgradeAssistant)
Currently now I would like to add it to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Application_Specific_Guidelines
I will send a mail to devel list which describes how to create a content for
preupgrade-assistant.
I will create several bugzilla's to specific components for creating contents.
Likie mariadb, postgresql, etc.
--
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195279] Review Request: preupgrade-assistant - Preupgrade assistant a tool for assess system before an upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195279
--- Comment #20 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl ---
- Why BR:pykickstart R:pykickstart in F23?
- Can you add %check back?
- Why the extra directory level in
%{_rpmconfigdir}/macros.d/macros.preupgrade-assistant/macros.preupgrade-assistant?
I don't see other packages doing this.
- %preupgrade_build is defined to the old name /usr/bin/create_group_xml.
- preupgrade-assistant.rpm has an empty /usr/share/doc/preupgrade directory and
README files are in /usr/share/preupgrade.
- I installed the rpm on F21. /usr/bin/preupg fails with:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File /usr/bin/preupg, line 8, in module
from preup.application import Application
File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/preup/application.py, line 18, in
module
from preuputils.compose import XCCDFCompose
ImportError: No module named preuputils.compose
Installing also -devel subpackage fixes that. Maybe you should merge -devel
back into the main package. They are both really tiny, so the split is probably
not worth the trouble.
- Looking at the first message:
The Preupgrade Assistant is a diagnostics tool
and does not perform the actual upgrade.
Make sure you back up your system and all of your data now,
before using the Upgrade Tool to avoid potential data loss.
Do you want to continue? y/n
If it is only a diagnostic tool, why is it unsafe to run?
Also, why does it require root privileges? Isn't the RPM database public?
- In the man page: All common log files are stored in
/var/cache/preupgrade/common. Isn't /var/log/preupgrade used?
- This package seems useless without preupgrade-assistant-contents. Is this
available somewhere?
--
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195279] Review Request: preupgrade-assistant - Preupgrade assistant a tool for assess system before an upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195279 Petr Hracek phra...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(clum...@redhat.co | |m) | --- Comment #17 from Petr Hracek phra...@redhat.com --- I have discussed this issue with Chris and pykickstart will not be backported. Therefore I suggest to build preupgrade-assistant with Python2 support for F22 and to build preupgrade-assistant with Python3 support for F23. -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195279] Review Request: preupgrade-assistant - Preupgrade assistant a tool for assess system before an upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195279 --- Comment #18 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- (In reply to Petr Hracek from comment #17) Therefore I suggest to build preupgrade-assistant with Python2 support for F22 and to build preupgrade-assistant with Python3 support for F23. OK. Can you submit an updated spec file? -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195279] Review Request: preupgrade-assistant - Preupgrade assistant a tool for assess system before an upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195279 Petr Hracek phra...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clum...@redhat.com Flags||needinfo?(clum...@redhat.co ||m) --- Comment #16 from Petr Hracek phra...@redhat.com --- Hi Chris, I would like to ask you if you can merge pykickstart which is available in rawhide (F23) to F22. pykickstart in F22 supports only python2, right? pykickstart in F23 supports both version. Greetings Petr -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195279] Review Request: preupgrade-assistant - Preupgrade assistant a tool for assess system before an upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195279 --- Comment #11 from Petr Hracek phra...@redhat.com --- But question is how to make preupgrade-assistant project compatible with Python2.6. Python2.7 is wrong of course because it is not delivered to F21. Sorry for mystification. I do not want to create a separate branch. I thought that if oscap_group_xml is called from Python3 than it does not make sence if /usr/bin/python2 is mentioned. But I can create a patch for RHEL6 which will replace /usr/bin/python3 with /usr/bin/python2 of course. -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195279] Review Request: preupgrade-assistant - Preupgrade assistant a tool for assess system before an upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195279 --- Comment #13 from Petr Hracek phra...@redhat.com --- Well, configparser is now corrected. Spec URL: https://phracek.fedorapeople.org/preupgrade-assistant.spec SRPM URL: https://phracek.fedorapeople.org/preupgrade-assistant-0.11.7-2.fc21.src.rpm -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195279] Review Request: preupgrade-assistant - Preupgrade assistant a tool for assess system before an upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195279 --- Comment #15 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- (In reply to Petr Hracek from comment #14) from the pykickstart point of view I am not a maintainer but I can ask. But I think that it won't be updated. Tests are going to be turn on definitelly. Also in F22. In F22 can be used only pykickstart How? pykickstart provides a module for Python2, but you will be running under Python 3. In F23 python3-pykickstart is enough. -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195279] Review Request: preupgrade-assistant - Preupgrade assistant a tool for assess system before an upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195279 --- Comment #10 from Petr Hracek phra...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #9) Created attachment 996036 [details] fedora-review output (In reply to Petr Hracek from comment #8) Regarding configparser. All is working properly. configparser.py provides class ConfigParser in F22 and in F23 too. This was not changed. The class name did not change. But the module name did. Well, I have checked the class name and module name configparser.py and both are identical. F22 and F23. It changed between Python 2 and 3. In comment #c5 there's a code snippet to make the code compatible with both versions. Only Python3 is supported by preupgrade-assistant OK, I see you removed %check. This is *not* the way to go. If the tests find a problem, fix the problem, don't remove the tests! I am going to add them later on. This BZ blocks a Feature for Fedora 22. We are going in circles. Let's go back to the beginning, and start with the basic questions: - what python version is preupgrade-assistant supposed to run? Is it going to be packaged for F21? Is the answer the same for both F23 and F22 and F21? Preupgrade-assistant is going to be used only for F22 and later. Not F21. Some data points: - in F22 pykickstart is at 1.99.66 and does *not* provide a python 3 version I know that. Therefore in SPEC file is mentioned if fedora is bigger then 23 then include python3-kickstart. - in F23 pykickstart is at 2.0 and does provide python3-kickstart - the version in F21 is even older and does Python 2 only No F21. - the code in ./preuputils/oscap_group_xml.py is atm Python2 only I have forgot that. I am going to change that in the next version. Spec URL: https://phracek.fedorapeople.org/preupgrade-assistant.spec SRPM URL: https://phracek.fedorapeople.org/preupgrade-assistant-0.11.7-1.fc21.src.rpm Would it be possible to execute fedora-review and paste result? In F21 I have problems with fedora-review. Attached. Thanks for the review. The preupgrade-assistant is already used on RHEL 6 systems before fedup. I have decided to release them in Fedora. Therefore code have to be compatible for Python3, Python2.7 and Python2.6. It is a bit complicated. And for your time with 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195279] Review Request: preupgrade-assistant - Preupgrade assistant a tool for assess system before an upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195279 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl --- Comment #9 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- Created attachment 996036 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=996036action=edit fedora-review output (In reply to Petr Hracek from comment #8) Regarding configparser. All is working properly. configparser.py provides class ConfigParser in F22 and in F23 too. This was not changed. The class name did not change. But the module name did. Well, I have checked the class name and module name configparser.py and both are identical. F22 and F23. It changed between Python 2 and 3. In comment #c5 there's a code snippet to make the code compatible with both versions. OK, I see you removed %check. This is *not* the way to go. If the tests find a problem, fix the problem, don't remove the tests! We are going in circles. Let's go back to the beginning, and start with the basic questions: - what python version is preupgrade-assistant supposed to run? Is it going to be packaged for F21? Is the answer the same for both F23 and F22 and F21? Some data points: - in F22 pykickstart is at 1.99.66 and does *not* provide a python 3 version - in F23 pykickstart is at 2.0 and does provide python3-kickstart - the version in F21 is even older and does Python 2 only - the code in ./preuputils/oscap_group_xml.py is atm Python2 only Spec URL: https://phracek.fedorapeople.org/preupgrade-assistant.spec SRPM URL: https://phracek.fedorapeople.org/preupgrade-assistant-0.11.7-1.fc21.src.rpm Would it be possible to execute fedora-review and paste result? In F21 I have problems with fedora-review. Attached. -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195279] Review Request: preupgrade-assistant - Preupgrade assistant a tool for assess system before an upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195279 --- Comment #12 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- (In reply to Petr Hracek from comment #10) (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #9) Created attachment 996036 [details] fedora-review output (In reply to Petr Hracek from comment #8) Regarding configparser. All is working properly. configparser.py provides class ConfigParser in F22 and in F23 too. This was not changed. The class name did not change. But the module name did. Well, I have checked the class name and module name configparser.py and both are identical. F22 and F23. It changed between Python 2 and 3. In comment #c5 there's a code snippet to make the code compatible with both versions. Only Python3 is supported by preupgrade-assistant OK. OK, I see you removed %check. This is *not* the way to go. If the tests find a problem, fix the problem, don't remove the tests! I am going to add them later on. This BZ blocks a Feature for Fedora 22. The tests are helpful. They already caught a silly bug, so it seems right to keep them, even in F22. We are going in circles. Let's go back to the beginning, and start with the basic questions: - what python version is preupgrade-assistant supposed to run? Is it going to be packaged for F21? Is the answer the same for both F23 and F22 and F21? Preupgrade-assistant is going to be used only for F22 and later. Not F21. Some data points: - in F22 pykickstart is at 1.99.66 and does *not* provide a python 3 version I know that. Therefore in SPEC file is mentioned if fedora is bigger then 23 then include python3-kickstart. But you cannot use pykickstart (a Python2-only package) with a program running under Python 3. If preupgrade-assistant is Python3-only, then any Requires:pykickstart or BuildRequires:pykickstart can to be removed. Can pykickstart version in F22 be updated to the same version as F23? This would solve the problem with missing dependency for you. - in F23 pykickstart is at 2.0 and does provide python3-kickstart - the version in F21 is even older and does Python 2 only No F21. OK. - the code in ./preuputils/oscap_group_xml.py is atm Python2 only I have forgot that. I am going to change that in the next version. -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195279] Review Request: preupgrade-assistant - Preupgrade assistant a tool for assess system before an upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195279 --- Comment #14 from Petr Hracek phra...@redhat.com --- from the pykickstart point of view I am not a maintainer but I can ask. But I think that it won't be updated. Tests are going to be turn on definitelly. Also in F22. In F22 can be used only pykickstart In F23 python3-pykickstart is enough. -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195279] Review Request: preupgrade-assistant - Preupgrade assistant a tool for assess system before an upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195279 --- Comment #8 from Petr Hracek phra...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #7) (In reply to Petr Hracek from comment #6) As you can see in koji Python3 in rawhide hasn't built correctly and it still fails. Oh, I see it now. But the previous build should still be available, so it should not matter for you. Yes you are right Regarding configparser. All is working properly. configparser.py provides class ConfigParser in F22 and in F23 too. This was not changed. The class name did not change. But the module name did. Well, I have checked the class name and module name configparser.py and both are identical. F22 and F23. Spec URL: https://phracek.fedorapeople.org/preupgrade-assistant.spec SRPM URL: https://phracek.fedorapeople.org/preupgrade-assistant-0.11.7-1.fc21.src.rpm Would it be possible to execute fedora-review and paste result? In F21 I have problems with fedora-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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195279] Review Request: preupgrade-assistant - Preupgrade assistant a tool for assess system before an upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195279
--- Comment #5 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl ---
(In reply to Petr Hracek from comment #4)
Today finally my mock is running.
But python3 does not exist rawhide yet.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=9781
And therefore ConfigParser is not available yet:(
When I look at the list, I see three F23 builds right at the top. I'm not sure
why do you think that there are no rawhide builds.
ConfigParser class is defined in configparser.py file, though.
ConfigParser (configparser.py) is part of subpackage python3-libs.
Yeah, it got renamed. You need to either rename it too, or if you're providing
Py2 compat, use something like:
try:
import configparser
except ImportError:
import ConfigParser as configparser
Thanks for good idea with renaming binaries. It really makes sense.
I am going to do that.
Cool, thanks.
I tried to build package in Copr, but F22 branch does not exist yet.
You might need to update you mock package first. It carries the buildroot
definitions. F22 and F23 build roots have been working for the last few weeks
or so.
I have updated SPEC file so that in F22 it uses python2. But Since F23 is
uses python3.
This makes things much more complicated for no good reason. The spec file is
much more complicated, and it'll also be confusing for users. I'd strongly
advise against that.
Although not strictly required, the intent of %license is to be used with bare
filename, so that the file is installed in /usr/share/licenses. Please remove
LICENSE from %{_pkgdocdir}
and add in %files:
%license LICENSE
fedora-review says:
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in
the spec URL.
Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /var/tmp/1195279-preupgrade-
assistant/diff.txt
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
E: explicit-lib-dependency python3-libs
Yep, such dependencies are added automatically.
W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/preupg.1.gz
E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/preuputils/postupgrade.py 0644L
/usr/bin/python2
preupgrade-assistant.src:96: W: macro-in-comment %{__python2}
preupgrade-assistant.src:97: W: macro-in-comment %else
preupgrade-assistant.src:98: W: macro-in-comment %{__python3}
preupgrade-assistant.src:99: W: macro-in-comment %endif
I hope you can reverse the Python2 / 3 split. I'll hold on actually testing the
package and further review until you make the decision. Testing both versions
is twice as much work :)
--
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195279] Review Request: preupgrade-assistant - Preupgrade assistant a tool for assess system before an upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195279 --- Comment #6 from Petr Hracek phra...@redhat.com --- Thanks for huge comments. As you can see in koji Python3 in rawhide hasn't built correctly and it still fails. I am going to change LICENSE file as you recommended. Regarding configparser. All is working properly. configparser.py provides class ConfigParser in F22 and in F23 too. This was not changed. -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195279] Review Request: preupgrade-assistant - Preupgrade assistant a tool for assess system before an upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195279 --- Comment #7 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- (In reply to Petr Hracek from comment #6) As you can see in koji Python3 in rawhide hasn't built correctly and it still fails. Oh, I see it now. But the previous build should still be available, so it should not matter for you. Regarding configparser. All is working properly. configparser.py provides class ConfigParser in F22 and in F23 too. This was not changed. The class name did not change. But the module name did. -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195279] Review Request: preupgrade-assistant - Preupgrade assistant a tool for assess system before an upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195279 --- Comment #4 from Petr Hracek phra...@redhat.com --- Today finally my mock is running. But python3 does not exist rawhide yet. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=9781 And therefore ConfigParser is not available yet:( ConfigParser class is defined in configparser.py file, though. ConfigParser (configparser.py) is part of subpackage python3-libs. On Fedora 22 ConfigParser is here: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?fileStart=450rpmID=5873335fileOrder=namebuildrootOrder=-idbuildrootStart=50#filelist Thanks for good idea with renaming binaries. It really makes sense. I am going to do that. I tried to build package in Copr, but F22 branch does not exist yet. I have updated SPEC file so that in F22 it uses python2. But Since F23 is uses python3. Spec URL: https://phracek.fedorapeople.org/preupgrade-assistant.spec SRPM URL: https://phracek.fedorapeople.org/preupgrade-assistant-0.11.6-1.fc21.src.rpm Hopefully the latest correction. Both mock builds were successful (rawhide and F22). Rawhide build in Copr is also done. http://copr-fe.cloud.fedoraproject.org/coprs/phracek/preupgrade-assistant/builds/ -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195279] Review Request: preupgrade-assistant - Preupgrade assistant a tool for assess system before an upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195279 --- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- Use %license for LICENSE. See https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/411#comment:11 for a fallback. Now it fails with: File /builddir/build/BUILD/preupgrade-assistant-0.11.5/preuputils/oscap_group_xml.py, line 8, in module import ConfigParser ImportError: No module named 'ConfigParser' There's only configparser afaik. Then it fails with: File /builddir/build/BUILD/preupgrade-assistant-0.11.5/preuputils/script_utils.py, line 6, in module import xml_utils ImportError: No module named 'xml_utils' This seems to be an incompatible absolute import. I have the feeling nobody ever run this code?! It would be great if you could check if it builds in mock for you. Spec file mostly looks good. I'm wondering though, before this gets set in stone: binaries like create_group_xml are rather generic. Maybe you could rename them to preupg-create-group-xml, preupg-xccdf-compose, etc. -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195279] Review Request: preupgrade-assistant - Preupgrade assistant a tool for assess system before an upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195279 --- Comment #2 from Petr Hracek phra...@redhat.com --- Well, this package is going to be used as on Fedora 22 as on RHEL 6. Upstream on GitHub should have common code. Therefore optparse has been used. argparse is available only in EPEL 6. you are right, in Fedora 22 only pykickstart exists. Since Fedora 23 pykickstart and python3-pykickstart exist. I am trying to build the package in Copr http://copr-fe.cloud.fedoraproject.org/coprs/phracek/preupgrade-assistant/ but I saw that there are some problems with python3. SRPM Url: https://phracek.fedorapeople.org/preupgrade-assistant-0.11.5-2.fc21.src.rpm Spec Url: https://phracek.fedorapeople.org/preupgrade-assistant.spec -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195279] Review Request: preupgrade-assistant - Preupgrade assistant a tool for assess system before an upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195279 Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1181557 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1181557 [Bug 1181557] Preupgrade Assistant -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195279] Review Request: preupgrade-assistant - Preupgrade assistant a tool for assess system before an upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195279
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl
--- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl ---
Is python-kickstart a thing? I see only pykickstart here.
You can remove the dependencies on ldconfig, they will be added automatically
when you use ldconfig in the %post/%postun scriplets.
In %description, there's a stray L.
User can specify only INI file and scripts
and other stuff needed by oscap is generated automatically. → something is
wrong with this sentence.
Requires: %{name} -- remove this one
Requires: %{name} = %{version}
Can the package be noarch?
I this will not be built for old EPELs, remove Group, BuildRoot, %clean,
%defattr.
Use %post -p /sbin/ldconfig for %post. It does not require bash invocation.
Use %{_docdir} instead of %{_datadir}/doc.
Remove 'cp %SOURCE1 .', you copy it from the source location later on anyway.
Remove 'mkdir -p -m 755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_rpmconfigdir}/macros.d' and add -D on
the next line.
The same for 'install -d -m 755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mandir}/man1'.
The tests fail for me with:
==
ERROR: test_opts (tests.test_preup.TestCLI)
basic test of several options
--
Traceback (most recent call last):
File /builddir/build/BUILD/preupgrade-assistant-0.11.5/tests/test_preup.py,
line 111, in test_opts
--contents, content/FOOBAR6_7, --cleanup])
File /builddir/build/BUILD/preupgrade-assistant-0.11.5/preup/cli.py, line
22, in __init__
self.opts, self.args = self.parser.parse_args(args=args)
File /usr/lib/python2.7/optparse.py, line 1402, in parse_args
self.error(str(err))
File /usr/lib/python2.7/optparse.py, line 1584, in error
self.exit(2, %s: error: %s\n % (self.get_prog_name(), msg))
File /usr/lib/python2.7/optparse.py, line 1574, in exit
sys.exit(status)
SystemExit: 2
Why would anyone use optparse instead of argparse in this day and age is beyond
me, but it's not a packaging issue, ... so this is just a side note, not part
of 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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195279] Review Request: preupgrade-assistant - Preupgrade assistant a tool for assess system before an upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195279 Petr Hracek phra...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
