[Bug 1267496] Review Request: python-reno: Release NOtes manager

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1267496

Javier Peña  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2016-06-17 09:29:18



-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1267496] Review Request: python-reno: Release NOtes manager

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1267496

Alan Pevec  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ape...@gmail.com



--- Comment #11 from Alan Pevec  ---
> * When a package provides both python2 and python3 subpackages, you need to
> take care of which interpreter the executable is using and in which
> subpackage it is placed.  I just committed this patch to rawhide:
> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/python-reno.git/commit/  which fixes this
> particular package.

Thanks, but I can't help to note that this is very inelegant, as the whole
python2/3 in Fedora :(
I don't have a solution, I'm just complaining, but I hope we could eventually
end up with macros or pre-processing spec, to generate both py2 and py3
packages from a single clean spec without %ifs and duplicate lines...

-- 
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 1267496] Review Request: python-reno: Release NOtes manager

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1267496

Toshio Ernie Kuratomi  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||a.bad...@gmail.com



--- Comment #10 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi  ---
A few notes:
* Since this package is now in the distribution, this review ticket can now be
closed.
* When packaging python2/python3 packages you need to be careful about your
dependencies.  In https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1267496#c7
fedora-review spit out the Requires for both subpackages.  python3-reno
requires /usr/bin/python2 which is an indication that there's something wrong
with the package.
* When a package provides both python2 and python3 subpackages, you need to
take care of which interpreter the executable is using and in which subpackage
it is placed.  I just committed this patch to rawhide:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/python-reno.git/commit/  which fixes this
particular package.

For this package, the /usr/bin/reno script is not functionally different when
it runs under python2 or python3.  So the packaging guidelines tell us that in
this case we should only ship one version of the script, running against
python3 (from fedora22 onward):
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Avoiding_collisions_between_the_python_2_and_python_3_stacks

Note: In a few packages running under python2 vs python3 does make a
difference.  Many unittest frameworks, for instance, can only inspect python2
code if the executable is run under python2 and can only inspect python3 code
if it is run under python3.  The guidelines specify a way to rename the
executable that's shipped in the python3 package to deal with those situations.
 That's not the case here.

Thanks to both of you for packaging and reviewing.  Hopefully this comment
gives you some information that you can use when packaging and reviewing future
python3 packages.

-- 
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 1267496] Review Request: python-reno: Release NOtes manager

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1267496

Jon Ciesla  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 1267496] Review Request: python-reno: Release NOtes manager

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1267496



--- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla  ---
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 1267496] Review Request: python-reno: Release NOtes manager

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1267496

Chandan Kumar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-cvs?



--- Comment #8 from Chandan Kumar  ---
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: python-reno
Short Description: Release NOtes manager
Upstream URL:  http://www.openstack.org/
Owners: chandankumar apevec
Branches: f23
InitialCC:

-- 
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 1267496] Review Request: python-reno: Release NOtes manager

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1267496

Javier Peña  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #7 from Javier Peña  ---
I hereby approve this package into Fedora Packages Collection, please submit a
SCM request.


This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
  a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
  listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
  case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
  in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
  ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text



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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache
 (v2.0)". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
 in /tmp/1267496-python-reno/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 4 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]: 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]: 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]: Package contains BR: 

[Bug 1267496] Review Request: python-reno: Release NOtes manager

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1267496



--- Comment #6 from Chandan Kumar  ---
Hello Jpena,

Thanks for the review.

Here is the updated
SPEC: https://chandankumar.fedorapeople.org/python-reno.spec

SRPM: https://chandankumar.fedorapeople.org/python-reno-0.1.0-2.fc22.src.rpm

Thanks,

Chandan Kumar

-- 
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 1267496] Review Request: python-reno: Release NOtes manager

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1267496

Javier Peña  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jp...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jp...@redhat.com



-- 
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 1267496] Review Request: python-reno: Release NOtes manager

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1267496



--- Comment #1 from Javier Peña  ---
Hi Chandar,

On a first look, I see the following changes are required:

- Move BuildRequires to the corresponding subpackages
- sphinx-build should belong to %install, rather than %build
- Do not remove eggs in %prep. I've been told a few times it was a mistake in
the guidelines, but can't find the link right now :).

Everything else looks ok. Thanks!

-- 
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 1267496] Review Request: python-reno: Release NOtes manager

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1267496



--- Comment #3 from Javier Peña  ---
Mmm, no way to undo a comment? :o)

-- 
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 1267496] Review Request: python-reno: Release NOtes manager

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1267496



--- Comment #2 from Javier Peña  ---
Hi Chandan,

On a first look, I see the following changes are required:

- Move BuildRequires to the corresponding subpackages
- sphinx-build should belong to %install, rather than %build
- Do not remove eggs in %prep. I've been told a few times it was a mistake in
the guidelines, but can't find the link right now :).

Everything else looks ok. Thanks!

-- 
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 1267496] Review Request: python-reno: Release NOtes manager

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1267496



--- Comment #4 from Chandan Kumar  ---
Thanks Jpena for the review.

Below is the updated
SPEC: https://chandankumar.fedorapeople.org/python-reno.spec
SRPM: https://chandankumar.fedorapeople.org/python-reno-0.1.0-2.fc22.src.rpm

Thanks,

Chandan Kumar

-- 
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 1267496] Review Request: python-reno: Release NOtes manager

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1267496



--- Comment #5 from Javier Peña  ---
In case the IRC comments got lost, I have two more items to fix:

- Now that BuildRequires are in the subpkg sections, there is no need for them
in the global section.
- I think some Requires are missing, at least PyYAML is being used.

Thanks!

-- 
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