[Bug 1452649] Review Request: python-exabgp - Package review request for ExaBGP spec

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452649

Luke Hinds  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |UPSTREAM
Last Closed||2017-07-06 04:31:48



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1452649] Review Request: python-exabgp - Package review request for ExaBGP spec

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452649

Alan Pevec  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1427510 (RDO-PIKE)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1427510
[Bug 1427510] Tracker: Blockers and Review requests for new RDO Pike
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1452649] Review Request: python-exabgp - Package review request for ExaBGP spec

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452649

Haïkel Guémar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |



--- Comment #26 from Haïkel Guémar  ---
You can close the ticket and proceed with the 4.0.1 update without holding off.


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1452649] Review Request: python-exabgp - Package review request for ExaBGP spec

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452649



--- Comment #25 from Thomas Mangin  ---
4.0.1 was released today

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1452649] Review Request: python-exabgp - Package review request for ExaBGP spec

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452649



--- Comment #24 from Thomas Mangin  ---
Yes, this is on master and will be for 4.0.1 which I would hope to release as
soon as possible. 4.0.0 being a 0.0 release has quite a few 'interesting
behaviours' :p

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1452649] Review Request: python-exabgp - Package review request for ExaBGP spec

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452649



--- Comment #23 from Luke Hinds  ---
@Thomas, is that on master? We are pinned to 4.0.0, so I will make the changes
in the spec for the next release.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1452649] Review Request: python-exabgp - Package review request for ExaBGP spec

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452649



--- Comment #22 from Thomas Mangin  ---
@Richard - As the author of ExaBGP, I can only fix the "upstream" issues. I
have made changes and the etc/exabgp folder of the repo is now a clear "list of
example" for users, and I would also invite the move of these files into
/usr/share.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1452649] Review Request: python-exabgp - Package review request for ExaBGP spec

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452649

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-exabgp-4.0.0-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-9aca13bcc7

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1452649] Review Request: python-exabgp - Package review request for ExaBGP spec

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452649



--- Comment #20 from Richard W.M. Jones  ---
I would say the most important issue we found are the not-really-config
files in /etc/exabgp/examples.  I'm not sure if it is intended that
users edit those.  If not, then Fedora (and other distros) would prefer
that those files are moved somewhere else, perhaps /usr/share if they
are non-architecture-specific text files.

Of course it's fine to have a symlink from /etc/exabgp/exabgp.conf
to /usr/share, and also fine for users to copy files from /usr/share
to /etc/exabgp when they really want to make local config changes.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1452649] Review Request: python-exabgp - Package review request for ExaBGP spec

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452649

Thomas Mangin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||tho...@mangin.com



--- Comment #19 from Thomas Mangin  ---
Thank you for this work. Much appreciated.

As I noticed that you would have preferred to see the copyright in every file.
I fired my editor and done some search and replace before 4.0.1:

https://github.com/Exa-Networks/exabgp/commit/dbd58a009c70628d89e7831aa1175fb5f52e9a28

If ever you ever find anything which does not follow any Fedora Guideline, I
will happily fix 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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1452649] Review Request: python-exabgp - Package review request for ExaBGP spec

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452649



--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-exabgp-4.0.0-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-9aca13bcc7

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1452649] Review Request: python-exabgp - Package review request for ExaBGP spec

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452649

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1452649] Review Request: python-exabgp - Package review request for ExaBGP spec

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452649



--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-exabgp-4.0.0-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-9aca13bcc7

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1452649] Review Request: python-exabgp - Package review request for ExaBGP spec

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452649



--- Comment #16 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-exabgp

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1452649] Review Request: python-exabgp - Package review request for ExaBGP spec

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452649

Haïkel Guémar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||karlthe...@gmail.com
 Depends On||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)



--- Comment #15 from Haïkel Guémar  ---
I sponsor lhinds.


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1452649] Review Request: python-exabgp - Package review request for ExaBGP spec

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452649

Richard W.M. Jones  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #14 from Richard W.M. Jones  ---
Good, it looks like everything is fixed satisfactorily in the
latest release.

*** Therefore I am APPROVING this package for Fedora ***

You must now continue the process here:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Get_Sponsored

I believe you're either at step "Get sponsored" or
"Add Package to Source Code Management (SCM) system".

Let me know if there's anything else I can help with.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1452649] Review Request: python-exabgp - Package review request for ExaBGP spec

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452649



--- Comment #13 from Luke Hinds  ---
Apologies, I did not git add the newer spec and srpm:

>> [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
>>  Note: No known owner of /usr/share/exabgp
>> [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
>>  Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/exabgp
>> 
>> Probably need to add %dir for this directory.
>> 
>> By the way, in the spec you can use %{_datadir} instead of
>> %{_prefix}/share.

> This is not fixed.

This should be fixed now. 

I used the following lines:

%dir %{_datadir}/exabgp
%dir %{_datadir}/exabgp/processes

>> [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
>>  Note: %defattr present but not needed
>> 
>> %defattr isn't required even for RHEL 7, so this should be deleted
>> unless you're really intending to use this spec file for ancient
>> versions of RPM.

> Not fixed.

Removed %defattr

>> [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
>> 
>> It seems as if the exabgp subpackage should have
>> ‘Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}’.
>> 
>> Currently the exabgp package requires ‘config(exabgp)’ which
>> python-exabgp provides, but that won't be sufficient to pull in the
>> correct version.

> Not fixed.

Added: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}

>> [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
>> 
>> Possibly, but I still think the not-really-config /etc/exabgp/examples
>> files should be moved to /usr/lib/exabgp.

> Not changed.

Now using lib (or rather lib64 which is referenced by _libdir)

mv ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/usr/share/exabgp/etc/*
${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/%{_libdir}/exabgp/


>> [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
>> 
>> I suspect exabgp should require python-exabgp.  The other dependencies
>> look fine.
>> 
>> [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
>>  Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in exabgp
>> 
>> See above.

I get a pass on this now.

[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.

I also have no failures [!] and the only `Issue` is:

- Permissions on files are set properly

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1452649] Review Request: python-exabgp - Package review request for ExaBGP spec

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452649



--- Comment #12 from Richard W.M. Jones  ---
(In reply to Richard W.M. Jones from comment #10)
> - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
> 
> I don't know why fedora-review prints this, but according to the
> Python packaging guidelines this is fine.

Fixed by adding BR: python2-devel

> - Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
>   Note: warning: File listed twice: /etc/exabgp/exabgp.conf
>   See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles
> 
> This is a bug.

This is fixed by removing the duplicate line.

> [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
>  Note: No known owner of /usr/share/exabgp
> [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
>  Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/exabgp
> 
> Probably need to add %dir for this directory.
> 
> By the way, in the spec you can use %{_datadir} instead of
> %{_prefix}/share.

This is not fixed.

> [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
>  Note: %defattr present but not needed
> 
> %defattr isn't required even for RHEL 7, so this should be deleted
> unless you're really intending to use this spec file for ancient
> versions of RPM.

Not fixed.

> [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
> 
> It seems as if the exabgp subpackage should have
> ‘Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}’.
> 
> Currently the exabgp package requires ‘config(exabgp)’ which
> python-exabgp provides, but that won't be sufficient to pull in the
> correct version.

Not fixed.

> [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
> 
> Possibly, but I still think the not-really-config /etc/exabgp/examples
> files should be moved to /usr/lib/exabgp.

Not changed.

> [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
> 
> I suspect exabgp should require python-exabgp.  The other dependencies
> look fine.
> 
> [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
>  Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in exabgp
> 
> See above.

See above.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1452649] Review Request: python-exabgp - Package review request for ExaBGP spec

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452649



--- Comment #11 from Luke Hinds  ---
Spec file and SRPM updated.

Current status:

Issues:
===
- Permissions on files are set properly.
  Note: See rpmlint output
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1452649] Review Request: python-exabgp - Package review request for ExaBGP spec

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452649



--- Comment #10 from Richard W.M. Jones  ---
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

I'm going to ignore this one because (a) it could be a local issue
(b) fedora-review / systemd / whatever throws away the actual error
message so I've no idea what the problem is.

- Permissions on files are set properly.
  Note: See rpmlint output
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions

Discussed extensively on this review bug, see previous comments.

- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel

I don't know why fedora-review prints this, but according to the
Python packaging guidelines this is fine.

- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
  Note: warning: File listed twice: /etc/exabgp/exabgp.conf
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles

This is a bug.

= 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.

3 clause BSD.

[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSD (3 clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated",
 "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 587 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/1452649-python-
 exabgp/licensecheck.txt

Upstream could add proper notices to more files, but it doesn't look
as if there is anything wrong.

[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/share/exabgp
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/exabgp

Probably need to add %dir for this directory.

By the way, in the spec you can use %{_datadir} instead of
%{_prefix}/share.

[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
 Note: %defattr present but not needed

%defattr isn't required even for RHEL 7, so this should be deleted
unless you're really intending to use this spec file for ancient
versions of RPM.

[-]: 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.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.

It seems as if the exabgp subpackage should have
‘Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}’.

Currently the exabgp package requires ‘config(exabgp)’ which
python-exabgp provides, but that won't be sufficient to pull in the
correct version.

[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.

Package seems to be written entirely in Python, so it should be fine.

[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 163840 bytes in 4 files.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines

Possibly, but I still think the not-really-config /etc/exabgp/examples
files should be moved to /usr/lib/exabgp.

[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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build 

[Bug 1452649] Review Request: python-exabgp - Package review request for ExaBGP spec

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452649



--- Comment #9 from Luke Hinds  ---
Hi Richard,

I have some updates:

- %license COPYRIGHT

done

- The exabgp package depends on  /usr/bin/perl

This is from two perl scripts which are examples of what can be used for
monitoring routes. Neither require modules outside of the standard set included
in perl. The main library will work fine without perl in place, as you rightly
noted around python being the main lang. So no Requires or BuildRequires
needed.

-  exabgp.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/etc/exabgp/examples/api-announcement.run 644 /usr/bin/env python

I spoke with a developer on IRC and they said that these do not need to be
executionable, as they are only there as examples for people to reference of
use if it suits their needs.

- exabgp.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/exabgp/examples/api-api.conf

Same again as the above, examples for users to reference..the recommendation
would be to copy them out and then amend, but most folks write their own.

- wrong-script-interpreter /etc/exabgp/examples/api-multisession.run
/usr/bin/env python

Upstream prefers not to change it to a fixed path, and instead use env for
python virtualenv use (I figure you already knew this from being a python man,
so that's why you omitted mentioning).

So the only others now are:

- spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/exabgp.1.gz
- manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/exabgp.1.gz 3: warning: macro `OS'
not defined
- exabgp.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary exabgp-healthcheck

I guess the above can be waived as they are warnings and not errors?

Original links have been refreshed. Latest review.txt here:
https://paste.fedoraproject.org/paste/mV-hAsjKX8pNkdvL-lYNe15M1UNdIGYhyRLivL9gydE=
 

p.s. thanks for time walking this through with me.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1452649] Review Request: python-exabgp - Package review request for ExaBGP spec

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452649



--- Comment #8 from Richard W.M. Jones  ---
%doc COPYRIGHT

should be

%license COPYRIGHT

The other two %doc files are OK as they are not license files.
Unfortunately I don't think that %license will work on RHEL
so you may need some %if's around that.

The package couldn't be installed (in a chroot).  However fedora-review
doesn't keep the actual error from that, so it might just be an error
caused by the systemd unit scripts.

The exabgp package depends on /usr/bin/perl which seems to be a bug.
Although the documentation mentions "a perl based healthcheck program",
the one included in this package is most definitely written in Python,
and there are no other perl binaries or libraries that I can see.

There are still loads of rpmlint errors of this kind:

  exabgp.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/etc/exabgp/examples/api-announcement.run 644 /usr/bin/env python

rpmlint is literally correct here that there is a script which is not
executable.  Is it intended that the end user will chmod +x the script(s)
that they need?

Another rpmlint problem is:

  exabgp.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/exabgp/examples/api-api.conf   

If these files are meant to be edited, then they must be marked as %config
or %config(noreplace) in the spec:

  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Configuration_files

If they are not meant to be edited (just symlinked to) then
I guess moving them to /usr/lib/exabgp is a better idea?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1452649] Review Request: python-exabgp - Package review request for ExaBGP spec

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452649



--- Comment #7 from Luke Hinds  ---
Hi Rich,

Fixed up quite a lot now. Some notes:

- %defattr is not needed.  It can be deleted.

done

- Group is not needed.  It can be deleted.

done

- The %{!?...} lines at the top are not needed in Fedora (not sure about RHEL).

I did try removing these, but they appear to be needed for  %{__python2},
%{python2_sitelib} directives to work. Some details here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Old (see Macros)

This package will be cherry picked(?) into CentOS / RHEL for RDO use, so needs
those.

- exabgp.noarch: E: description-line-too-long

done

- exabgp.noarch: E: non-standard-executable-perm

done


- exabgp.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/exabgp.1.gz
- exabgp.noarch: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/exabgp.1.gz 3:
warning: macro `OS' not defined
- exabgp.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/man/man5/exabgp.conf.5.gz
- exabgp.noarch: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man5/exabgp.conf.5.gz 3:
warning: macro `OS' not defined

Not sure what to do about these, I did google around and could only find an old
comment from yours truly: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467397#c4

p.s. latest files are commited to the original links, so a fedora-review -b
will pull in the latest changes.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1452649] Review Request: python-exabgp - Package review request for ExaBGP spec

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452649



--- Comment #6 from Richard W.M. Jones  ---
Fedora-review is complaining that the spec file and the spec file inside
the SRPM (both linked from comment 4) are slightly different, but it's
only the %description which is different, so don't worry about it for now.

A few issues about the spec file in general.

- %defattr is not needed.  It can be deleted.
- Group is not needed.  It can be deleted.
- The %{!?...} lines at the top are not needed in Fedora (not sure about RHEL).

I'm still seeing a large number of rpmlint errors, so let's see:

python-exabgp.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/exabgp/application/bmp.py /usr/bin/env python
python-exabgp.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/exabgp/application/bmp.py 644 /usr/bin/env
python

 - This (and similar) is likely to be wrong, unless (a) that file is
   really a script rather than a library and (b) it can run under
   any version of python2 (or any version of python if we later
   rename python3 -> python).  However the Python Packaging Guidelines
   seem to be silent on this so I don't know if it's a packaging bug.

exabgp.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C ExaBGP allows engineers to
control their network from commodity servers. Think of it as Software Defined
Networking using BGP by transforming BGP messages into friendly plain text or
JSON.

 - Worth folding the lines at 72 chars I guess.

exabgp.noarch: E: non-standard-executable-perm
/etc/exabgp/examples/addpath.conf 744
exabgp.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /etc/exabgp/examples/addpath.conf

 - That doesn't make much sense for any file.  Should it be 0644?
   In the spec file:
   %attr(744, root, root) %{_sysconfdir}/exabgp/examples/*

exabgp.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/exabgp.1.gz
exabgp.noarch: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/exabgp.1.gz 3:
warning: macro `OS' not defined
exabgp.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man5/exabgp.conf.5.gz
exabgp.noarch: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man5/exabgp.conf.5.gz 3:
warning: macro `OS' not defined

 - Should be fixable I think?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1452649] Review Request: python-exabgp - Package review request for ExaBGP spec

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452649



--- Comment #5 from Richard W.M. Jones  ---
I'm using:

$ fedora-review -b 1452649

I don't know what build options it uses by default.  Anyway,
I'm doing another run now using the latest URLs.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1452649] Review Request: python-exabgp - Package review request for ExaBGP spec

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452649



--- Comment #4 from Luke Hinds  ---
Hey Rich,

I refreshed the following that fixes rpmlint errors (without the --all flag)

$ rpmlint python-exabgp.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/lukehinds/ExaBGP-Packaging/master/python-exabgp.spec

SRPM URL:
https://github.com/lukehinds/ExaBGP-Packaging/raw/master/python-exabgp-4.0.0-1.fc25.src.rpm

In your verbose log, I am not to sure what to do with some, as they don't make
an awful lot of sense:

non-standard-executable-perm /etc/exabgp/examples/aggregator.conf 744

I think other stuff like 'wrong-script-interpreter' is due the python scripts
being libraries, more then executables. 

What flags are passing to rpmbuild so I can replicate your workflow?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1452649] Review Request: python-exabgp - Package review request for ExaBGP spec

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452649



--- Comment #3 from Richard W.M. Jones  ---
Created attachment 1280996
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1280996=edit
rpmlint errors

rpmlint gives a really long list of errors.  I didn't check them
in detail, and possibly some are caused by my build environment,
but they are attached here so please take a look.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1452649] Review Request: python-exabgp - Package review request for ExaBGP spec

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452649



--- Comment #2 from Richard W.M. Jones  ---
You might want to take a look at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_common_spec_file

In particular, the Source url is (probably) wrong.  It would be good
to have a full link to the tarball there.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1452649] Review Request: python-exabgp - Package review request for ExaBGP spec

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452649



--- Comment #1 from Richard W.M. Jones  ---
warning: bogus date in %changelog: Tue May 18 2015 Luke Hinds
 - 4.0.0
warning: bogus date in %changelog: Tue May 18 2015 Luke Hinds
 - 4.0.0

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1452649] Review Request: python-exabgp - Package review request for ExaBGP spec

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452649

Richard W.M. Jones  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||rjo...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rjo...@redhat.com
  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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org