[Bug 742388] Review Request: polybori - Framework for Boolean Rings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742388 Brendan Jones changed: What|Removed |Added CC||brendan.jones...@gmail.com QAContact|extras...@fedoraproject.org |brendan.jones...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #6 from Brendan Jones 2011-12-22 06:42:32 EST --- I will take this review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 742388] Review Request: polybori - Framework for Boolean Rings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742388 --- Comment #7 from Brendan Jones 2011-12-22 08:36:53 EST --- Hi Jerry, I get rpmlint errors in polybori.x86_64: E: no-binary Ordinarily this means that this package should be BuildArch: noarch, but after looking at the script you can see its a wrapper for the ipython script. This highlights something that needs changing I think, namely that we have an architecture specific script in /usr/share (which is not permitted) I haven't tried it but I'd suggest you move the script to /usr/bin where it belongs and provide a simple patch such that it looks for what it needs in /usr/share/polybori rpm -qlpv /home/bsjones/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/polybori-0.8.0-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm lrwxrwxrwx1 rootroot 31 Dec 22 14:09 /usr/bin/ipbori -> ../share/polybori/ipbori/ipbori -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1337 Sep 7 22:25 /usr/share/man/man1/ipbori.1.gz drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Dec 22 14:09 /usr/share/polybori drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Dec 22 14:09 /usr/share/polybori/ipbori -rwxr-xr-x1 rootroot 2003 Dec 22 14:09 /usr/share/polybori/ipbori/ipbori -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1162 Dec 22 14:09 /usr/share/polybori/ipbori/ipythonrc-polybori -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 742388] Review Request: polybori - Framework for Boolean Rings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742388
--- Comment #8 from Jerry James 2011-12-22 19:25:30 EST
---
I'm not sure I understand. What script is architecture specific?
In any case, I moved the ipbori script to %{_bindir} as requested, but rpmlint
is still going to give that error, since there is no binary in the main
package. I"m willing to discuss other ways of dividing the subpackages if you
don't like this arrangement.
Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/polybori/polybori.spec
SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/polybori/polybori-0.8.0-2.fc16.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 742388] Review Request: polybori - Framework for Boolean Rings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742388 --- Comment #9 from Brendan Jones 2011-12-22 20:04:47 EST --- Sorry I should have been more specific: fedora16:~ $ grep lib64 /usr/share/polybori/ipbori/ipbori # Note: ../../lib64/python2.7/site-packages is replaced on installation with relative path export IPBORI_INIT_CMDS="import sys; sys.path.insert(0, '$PBDIR/../../lib64/python2.7/site-packages');\ There you can see hard coded references to lib64. On looking at this, I've also noticed that if you install only polybori and polybori-libs and try and run this script you get Python 2.7.2 (default, Oct 27 2011, 01:40:22) Type "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. IPython 0.11 -- An enhanced Interactive Python. ? -> Introduction and overview of IPython's features. %quickref -> Quick reference. help -> Python's own help system. object? -> Details about 'object', use 'object??' for extra details. --- ImportError Traceback (most recent call last) /home/bsjones/ in () > 1 print'';import sys; sys.path.insert(0, '/usr/share/polybori/../../lib64/python2.7/site-packages');from polybori.frontend import *; polybori_start(globals()) ImportError: No module named polybori.frontend So I would think that the script needs to be in whatever package polybori.frontend is in (python-polybori). That doesn't leave much left in the main package so you will need to either add another requires or reconsider the layout of your subpackages. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 742388] Review Request: polybori - Framework for Boolean Rings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742388 --- Comment #10 from Jerry James 2011-12-29 14:42:12 EST --- OK, sorry to be dense on the script issue. You're right: even though rpmlint thinks that script is noarch, it really is arch-specific. I've rearranged the packages slightly; briefly polybori => polybori-ipbori and polybori-libs => polybori. I also changed the Requires to reflect the new layout, and the ipbori dependency you noted in comment 9. I also made polybori-docs be noarch. Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/polybori/polybori.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/polybori/polybori-0.8.0-3.fc16.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 742388] Review Request: polybori - Framework for Boolean Rings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742388
Brendan Jones changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #11 from Brendan Jones 2012-01-02
05:33:33 EST ---
Hi Jerry,
Now all good. This package is APPROVED
Required
+ - OK
- - N/A
X - attention
? - comment please
[+] named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
[+] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
[+] Meet the Packaging Guidelines
unless building for F12 and below or EPEL
[+] Be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing
Guidelines
[+] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license
[+] License file must be included in %doc
[+] The spec file must be written in American English
[+] The spec file for the package MUST be legible
[+] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source
266218f3ccee05854dac6ea3e68ddbc570c16c45
rpmbuild/SOURCES/polybori-0.8.0.tar.gz
[+] Successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary
architecture
[-] Proper use of ExcludeArch
[+] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[-] The spec file MUST handle locales properly
[+] Shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's
default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun
[+] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries
[-] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this
fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation
of that specific package
[+] A package must own all directories that it creates
directories under this
[+] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings
[+] Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] Each package must consistently use macros
[+] The package must contain code, or permissable content
[+] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage
[+] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application
[+] Header files must be in a -devel package
[+] Static libraries must be in a -static package
[+] library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package
[+] devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency
[+] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives
[+] GUI apps must include a %{name}.desktop file, properly installed with
desktop-file-install in the %install section
[+] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages
[+] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8
[+] Has BuildRequires: python2-devel and/or python3-devel
[-] Python eggs must be built from source. They cannot simply drop an egg from
upstream into the proper directory.
[+] Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[-] If egg-info files are generated by the modules build scripts they must be
included in the package.
[-] When building a compat package, it must install using easy_install -m so it
won't conflict with the main package.
[-] When building multiple versions (for a compat package) one of the packages
must contain a default version that is usable via "import MODULE" with no prior
setup.
[-] A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[+] Requires OK
[-] Egg install:
%install
%{__python} setup.py install --skip-build --root $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Should Items
[-] the packager SHOULD query upstream for any missing license text files to
include it
[-] Non-English language support for description and summary sections in the
package spec if available
[+] The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock
[+] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures
[-] The reviewer should test that the package functions as described
[+] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane
[+] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using
a fully versioned dependency
Do you need an explicit Requires: apron-debug in package ocaml-apron-debug?
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) should usually be placed in a -devel pkg
[-] If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file
instead of the file itself
[+] Should contain man pages for binaries/scripts
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
h
[Bug 742388] Review Request: polybori - Framework for Boolean Rings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742388 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #12 from Jerry James 2012-01-02 22:56:20 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: polybori Short Description: Framework for Boolean Rings Owners: jjames Branches: InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 742388] Review Request: polybori - Framework for Boolean Rings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742388 --- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla 2012-01-03 08:24:48 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). Brendan, please take ownership of review BZs, thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 742388] Review Request: polybori - Framework for Boolean Rings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742388 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-01-03 10:57:45 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 742388] Review Request: polybori - Framework for Boolean Rings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742388 Thomas Spura changed: What|Removed |Added CC||toms...@fedoraproject.org --- Comment #1 from Thomas Spura 2011-09-30 09:16:06 EDT --- The __provides_exclude_from shouldn't be used anymore use this: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering#Arch-specific_extensions_to_scripting_languages -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 742388] Review Request: polybori - Framework for Boolean Rings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742388 --- Comment #2 from Jerry James 2011-09-30 15:47:12 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > The __provides_exclude_from shouldn't be used anymore use this: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering#Arch-specific_extensions_to_scripting_languages No, the filtering method described there CANNOT be used for this package: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering#Usage The __provides_exclude_from method is new with RPM 4.9, and does not suffer from those usage restrictions. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tibbs/AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering#RPM_4.9_method_.28Fedora_15_and_newer.29 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 742388] Review Request: polybori - Framework for Boolean Rings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742388 --- Comment #3 from Thomas Spura 2011-10-06 17:08:41 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > The __provides_exclude_from shouldn't be used anymore use this: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering#Arch-specific_extensions_to_scripting_languages > > No, the filtering method described there CANNOT be used for this package: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering#Usage > > The __provides_exclude_from method is new with RPM 4.9, and does not suffer > from those usage restrictions. See: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tibbs/AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering#RPM_4.9_method_.28Fedora_15_and_newer.29 Thanks for that link, that's news to me... On the same page is "You must use %define" for it, currently it's %global. I don't understand bug #652971 comment#41. Looks like the macros have been replaced and are ok now? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 742388] Review Request: polybori - Framework for Boolean Rings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742388 --- Comment #4 from Jerry James 2011-10-07 10:01:06 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > Thanks for that link, that's news to me... > On the same page is "You must use %define" for it, currently it's %global. Yeah, that should read "You must use %define or %global", as opposed to using %filter_setup. See https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/76. > I don't understand bug #652971 comment#41. > Looks like the macros have been replaced and are ok now? Hmmm, I don't understand that comment either. All I know is that I get the right result with this filter expression. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 742388] Review Request: polybori - Framework for Boolean Rings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742388 --- Comment #5 from Jerry James 2011-10-14 17:50:43 EDT --- A problem with building the existing python-polybori package on secondary arches was discovered and patched by Dan Horák. I have updated this package to have the same fix, but did not bump the release number. The URLs have not changed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
