[Bug 1262644] Review Request: python-Pyped - Replace sed/grep/cut/awk by letting you execute Python one-liners
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262644 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- python-Pyped-1.4-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 1262644] Review Request: python-Pyped - Replace sed/grep/cut/awk by letting you execute Python one-liners
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262644 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- python-Pyped-1.4-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 1262644] Review Request: python-Pyped - Replace sed/grep/cut/awk by letting you execute Python one-liners
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262644 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-11-30 16:21:36 -- 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 1262644] Review Request: python-Pyped - Replace sed/grep/cut/awk by letting you execute Python one-liners
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262644 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- python-Pyped-1.4-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update python-Pyped' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-c67e5728c9 -- 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 1262644] Review Request: python-Pyped - Replace sed/grep/cut/awk by letting you execute Python one-liners
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262644 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- python-Pyped-1.4-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update python-Pyped' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-806828 -- 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 1262644] Review Request: python-Pyped - Replace sed/grep/cut/awk by letting you execute Python one-liners
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262644 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- python-Pyped-1.4-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-806828 -- 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 1262644] Review Request: python-Pyped - Replace sed/grep/cut/awk by letting you execute Python one-liners
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262644 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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 1262644] Review Request: python-Pyped - Replace sed/grep/cut/awk by letting you execute Python one-liners
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262644 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- python-Pyped-1.4-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-c67e5728c9 -- 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 1262644] Review Request: python-Pyped - Replace sed/grep/cut/awk by letting you execute Python one-liners
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262644 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/python-Pyped -- 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 1262644] Review Request: python-Pyped - Replace sed/grep/cut/awk by letting you execute Python one-liners
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262644 Julien Enselme changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Julien Enselme --- I think you should add a line break between each changelog entry to make it more readable. The Python3 subpackage should have the default executable for 22 and above. Looks good. 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 1262644] Review Request: python-Pyped - Replace sed/grep/cut/awk by letting you execute Python one-liners
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262644 --- Comment #6 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- uggla's scratch build of python-Pyped-1.4-2.fc22.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11756733 -- 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 1262644] Review Request: python-Pyped - Replace sed/grep/cut/awk by letting you execute Python one-liners
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262644
--- Comment #5 from René Ribaud ---
Hello Julien,
>- I guess you intended to use the %sum variable
I used it now.
>- Python3 by default https://fedoraproject.org
>wiki/Packaging:Python#Avoiding_collisions_between_the_python_2_and_python_3_stacks
Fixed as porposed in the doco. Please tell me if it is fine from your point of
view.
>- Not sure if your patch is useful
Yep otherwise I get an error at build step.
>- To get rid of the E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages
>pyped.py 644 /usr/bin/env you should remove the shebang from pyped.py. The
>typical way to do this is to call sed -i '1{\@^#!/usr/bin/env python@d}'
>%{buildroot}%{python3_sitearch}/pyped.py in %install (the same for python 2).
>I will wait for this to be fixed before approving the package.
I have just made the required file executable as it should be run by the user.
New packages location :
Spec URL: http://uggla.free.fr/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-Pyped.spec
SRPM URL: http://uggla.free.fr/rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-Pyped-1.4-2.fc22.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 1262644] Review Request: python-Pyped - Replace sed/grep/cut/awk by letting you execute Python one-liners
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262644
--- Comment #4 from Julien Enselme ---
> - Python3 by default
I hit "save changes" a little fast. You are indeed using python3 by default,
but you include the binary twice in python2 package and in python3 package.
Since it is design to run with python3, please include it only in the python3
package. I don't think it can work with only the python2 version of the
package.
As stated in the guidelines, if the python2 executable behaves differently from
the python3 one (which seems likely since it executes python code and python2
and python3 are not entirely compatible) you should provide a
pyp-%{python2_version} binary in the python2 package. You can also have a
pyp-%{python3_version} symlink to pyp.
To do this, rename the executable `mv %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/pyp
%{buildroot}%{_bindir}/pyp-%{python2_version}` before running %py3_install
--
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 1262644] Review Request: python-Pyped - Replace sed/grep/cut/awk by letting you execute Python one-liners
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262644
Julien Enselme changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||juj...@jujens.eu
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|juj...@jujens.eu
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Julien Enselme ---
- I guess you intended to use the %sum variable
- Python3 by default
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Avoiding_collisions_between_the_python_2_and_python_3_stacks
- Not sure if your patch is useful
- To get rid of the E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/pyped.py 644 /usr/bin/env you should remove
the shebang from pyped.py. The typical way to do this is to call sed -i
'1{\@^#!/usr/bin/env python@d}' %{buildroot}%{python3_sitearch}/pyped.py in
%install (the same for python 2). I will wait for this to be fixed before
approving the package.
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: "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /tmp/1262644-python-Pyped/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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 2 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: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separat
[Bug 1262644] Review Request: python-Pyped - Replace sed/grep/cut/awk by letting you execute Python one-liners
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262644 --- Comment #2 from René Ribaud --- Hello, Thanks for reviewing the pkg. Here is a couple of answers about your comments. 1) no tests The upstream package is not provided with unitary tests. I kept the %check section in the spec file to remember me to implement that as soon as upstream will implement some of them. 2) errors: "non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pyped.py 644 /usr/bin/env" also error for python3.*. Unfortunately, I think I submitted this package a bit too early. You can notice that the package depends of minibelt, which is not in the released yet and prevent the package installation. I have a request for it : https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262643 3) no-manual-page-for-binary pyp Unless if I'm wrong there is no manual page provided by upstream yet. So I think this pkg is on old until, minibelt will be integrated into Fedora. -- 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 1262644] Review Request: python-Pyped - Replace sed/grep/cut/awk by letting you execute Python one-liners
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262644
Ilya Gradina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ilya.grad...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Ilya Gradina ---
This is an unofficial review of the package.
some notes:
1) no tests
2) errors: "non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pyped.py 644
/usr/bin/env" also error for python3.*.
3) no-manual-page-for-binary pyp
---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
= 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". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/ilgrad/1262644-python-
Pyped/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.
[ ]: 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 40960 bytes in 2 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]: 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:
[ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[ ]: 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: python2-devel or python3-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.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
python2-Pyped , python3-Pyped
[ ]: Package functions as described
