[Bug 1756331] Review Request: tmt - Test Metadata Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756331 Petr Šplíchal changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2019-09-30 15:32:13 --- Comment #10 from Petr Šplíchal --- Package has been built successfully, closing. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1392637 -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1756331] Review Request: tmt - Test Metadata Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756331 --- Comment #9 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/tmt -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1756331] Review Request: tmt - Test Metadata Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756331 --- Comment #8 from Petr Šplíchal --- Thanks for the feedback. I've updated the spec to build python3 packages only. Warnings have been fixed as well. Waiting for the repo and branches. -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1756331] Review Request: tmt - Test Metadata Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756331
--- Comment #7 from Miro Hrončok ---
(In reply to Petr Šplíchal from comment #6)
> Thinking about it a little bit more, we could probably just go
> with Python 3. Only RHEL7 would be Python 2. What do you think?
I recommend enabling python3 in fmf and switching to Python 3 only everywhere.
--
You might also want to see this:
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/fmf/utils.py:205
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/fmf/utils.py:205: DeprecationWarning:
invalid escape sequence \s
for atom in re.split("\s*,\s*", value):
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/fmf/utils.py:240
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/fmf/utils.py:240: DeprecationWarning:
invalid escape sequence \s
for literal in re.split("\s*&\s*", clause):
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/fmf/utils.py:243
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/fmf/utils.py:243: DeprecationWarning:
invalid escape sequence \s
matched = re.match("^(.*)\s*:\s*(.*)$", literal)
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/fmf/utils.py:283
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/fmf/utils.py:283: DeprecationWarning:
invalid escape sequence \s
for clause in re.split("\s*\|\s*", filter)])
tmt/convert.py:75
/builddir/build/BUILD/tmt-0.1/tmt/convert.py:75: DeprecationWarning: invalid
escape sequence \s
'echo "Description:\s*(.*)"', content).group(1)
tmt/convert.py:79
/builddir/build/BUILD/tmt-0.1/tmt/convert.py:79: DeprecationWarning: invalid
escape sequence \s
'echo "RunFor:\s*(.*)"', content).group(1)
tmt/convert.py:83
/builddir/build/BUILD/tmt-0.1/tmt/convert.py:83: DeprecationWarning: invalid
escape sequence \s
'echo "TestTime:\s*(.*)"', content).group(1)
--
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
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1756331] Review Request: tmt - Test Metadata Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756331
--- Comment #6 from Petr Šplíchal ---
> > Unfortunately we still have a couple of tools in process of
> > migration to Python 3 so the Python 2 subpackage is necessary.
> > Hopefully soon we'll have everything Python 3 only and the spec
> > file will become much more simple.
>
> What tools? I don't understand why the Python 2 package is only
> needed in Fedora 29, but not Fedora 30.
python-nitrate is still on the way: BZ#1727936
But hopefully to migration will soon be finished.
> > So the %{python3_pkgversion} is not needed any more? If you see
> > anything which can be simplified I'm definitely open to make it
> > more readable.
>
> %{python3_pkgversion} is only needed for Python 3 on EPEL 6 and 7. Clearly,
> the spec is designed to not build Python 3 on EPEL 6 and 7.
> %{python3_pkgversion} is not needed in Fedora or EPEL 8.
I see, thanks for clarification.
Thinking about it a little bit more, we could probably just go
with Python 3. Only RHEL7 would be Python 2. What do you 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
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1756331] Review Request: tmt - Test Metadata Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756331
--- Comment #5 from Miro Hrončok ---
(In reply to Petr Šplíchal from comment #4)
> (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #2)
> > I'm surprised by the complexity of the %bcond options.
> >
> > What's the point of the Python 2 subpackage on Fedora 29?
>
> Unfortunately we still have a couple of tools in process of
> migration to Python 3 so the Python 2 subpackage is necessary.
> Hopefully soon we'll have everything Python 3 only and the spec
> file will become much more simple.
What tools? I don't understand why the Python 2 package is only needed in
Fedora 29, but not Fedora 30.
> > What's the point of using %{python3_pkgversion} if your are not
> > shipping Python 3 subpackage in EL < 8?
>
> So the %{python3_pkgversion} is not needed any more? If you see
> anything which can be simplified I'm definitely open to make it
> more readable.
%{python3_pkgversion} is only needed for Python 3 on EPEL 6 and 7. Clearly, the
spec is designed to not build Python 3 on EPEL 6 and 7.
%{python3_pkgversion} is not needed in Fedora or EPEL 8.
--
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
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1756331] Review Request: tmt - Test Metadata Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756331
--- Comment #4 from Petr Šplíchal ---
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #2)
> I'm surprised by the complexity of the %bcond options.
>
> What's the point of the Python 2 subpackage on Fedora 29?
Unfortunately we still have a couple of tools in process of
migration to Python 3 so the Python 2 subpackage is necessary.
Hopefully soon we'll have everything Python 3 only and the spec
file will become much more simple.
> What's the point of using %{python3_pkgversion} if your are not
> shipping Python 3 subpackage in EL < 8?
Well, this spec is basically an updated copy of the spec we've put
together for fmf:
https://github.com/psss/fmf/commit/2d35fe5
So the %{python3_pkgversion} is not needed any more? If you see
anything which can be simplified I'm definitely open to make it
more readable.
--
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
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1756331] Review Request: tmt - Test Metadata Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756331 --- Comment #3 from Petr Šplíchal --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1) > - Remove hidden files in %prep: > > tmt.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/tmt/examples/convert/.fmf > tmt.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/tmt/examples/convert/.fmf > tmt.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/tmt/examples/httpd/.fmf > tmt.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/tmt/examples/httpd/.fmf > tmt.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/tmt/examples/mini/.fmf > tmt.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/tmt/examples/mini/.fmf > tmt.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/tmt/examples/systemd/.fmf > tmt.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/tmt/examples/systemd/.fmf Thanks for the quick review, Robert-André. Regarding the hidden files mentioned above: They are necessary for the examples to work. The special ".fmf" directory is used to identify the root of the metadata tree (similarly as ".git" does for repositories): https://fmf.readthedocs.io/en/latest/concept.html#tree So they need to be included in the package as well. -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1756331] Review Request: tmt - Test Metadata Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756331
Miro Hrončok changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mhron...@redhat.com
--- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok ---
I'm surprised by the complexity of the %bcond options.
What's the point of the Python 2 subpackage on Fedora 29?
What's the point of using %{python3_pkgversion} if your are not shipping Python
3 subpackage in EL < 8?
--
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
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1756331] Review Request: tmt - Test Metadata Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756331
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Remove hidden files in %prep:
tmt.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/tmt/examples/convert/.fmf
tmt.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/tmt/examples/convert/.fmf
tmt.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/tmt/examples/httpd/.fmf
tmt.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/tmt/examples/httpd/.fmf
tmt.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/tmt/examples/mini/.fmf
tmt.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/tmt/examples/mini/.fmf
tmt.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/tmt/examples/systemd/.fmf
tmt.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/tmt/examples/systemd/.fmf
Package approved, please fix the aforementioned issue before import.
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: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 26 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/tmt/review-tmt/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 30720 bytes in 12 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists.
