[Bug 1830306] Review Request: git-revise - Efficiently update, split, and rearrange git commits
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830306
Juan Orti Alcaine changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Juan Orti Alcaine ---
Looks good. Approved.
= 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.
[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 20480 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]: 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. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[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.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve
[Bug 1830306] Review Request: git-revise - Efficiently update, split, and rearrange git commits
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830306 --- Comment #8 from Ian McInerney --- Updated spec file: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/imcinerney/git-revise/fedora-32-x86_64/01444572-python-git-revise/python-git-revise.spec Updated srpm file: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/imcinerney/git-revise/fedora-32-x86_64/01444572-python-git-revise/python-git-revise-0.5.1-4.fc32.src.rpm This splits the package into 2: git-revise and python3-git-revise. git-revise contains the launcher and the man page, and the python3-git-revise package contains the python modules. The python3-git-revise package has a recommends for git-revise, so users will still get the launcher/man page. -- 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 1830306] Review Request: git-revise - Efficiently update, split, and rearrange git commits
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830306 --- Comment #7 from Juan Orti Alcaine --- I'm afraid that as this package includes a python module, that will need to be split to a python3-git-revise subpackage, and the main package with the binary requiring the module. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_naming Please, split it and I will submit my formal review. Thank you. -- 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 1830306] Review Request: git-revise - Efficiently update, split, and rearrange git commits
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830306 --- Comment #6 from Ian McInerney --- Updated spec file: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/imcinerney/git-revise/fedora-32-x86_64/01400531-git-revise/git-revise.spec Updated srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/imcinerney/git-revise/fedora-32-x86_64/01400531-git-revise/git-revise-0.5.1-3.fc32.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 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 1830306] Review Request: git-revise - Efficiently update, split, and rearrange git commits
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830306 --- Comment #5 from Ian McInerney --- > There's documentation that you can build with sphinx in the doc directory. > It'll probably need to go to a doc subpackage. Is there any advantage to doing this? It appears that the docs are the manpage + installation instructions + contributing + a small set of API documentation, so according to the guidelines only the API documentation should be packaged - which is actually a very small amount of the docs set and hard to extract. It would seem that for this program, the manpage would be enough to package. > If possible, you should run the included tests in the %check section. Will do -- 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 1830306] Review Request: git-revise - Efficiently update, split, and rearrange git commits
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830306 --- Comment #4 from Juan Orti Alcaine --- A few more things: - There's documentation that you can build with sphinx in the doc directory. It'll probably need to go to a doc subpackage. - If possible, you should run the included tests in the %check section. -- 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 1830306] Review Request: git-revise - Efficiently update, split, and rearrange git commits
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830306
--- Comment #3 from Ian McInerney ---
Updated spec file:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/imcinerney/git-revise/fedora-32-x86_64/01381895-git-revise/git-revise.spec
Updated SRPM:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/imcinerney/git-revise/fedora-32-x86_64/01381895-git-revise/git-revise-0.5.1-2.fc32.src.rpm
> The checksum of the tarball in the SRPM and upstream doesn't match. Please
> make sure the SRPM is updated.
Apparently it was still using the PyPi version that I initially made the spec
using (but then modified to use the non-PyPi version). Fixed now.
> You might want to rename the tarball using the Source URL as:
> https://github.com/mystor/git-revise/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
but that's up to you.
Fixed.
> Why does it require setuptools? It should be a BuildRequires only.
That was added in by the pypi2rpm generator when I first ran it, so I guess it
thought it was needed. I agree, it shouldn't be there though.
> Please, open a bug report upstream with the included patch and reference it
> in the spec file.
Done.
> This should also be "BuildArch: noarch", which will remove the need for
> disabling debuginfo subpackage.
I already had it as noarch in the spec, it's just I was concerned by the line
+ /usr/lib/rpm/find-debuginfo.sh -j12 --strict-build-id -m -i
--build-id-seed 0.5.1-2.fc32 --unique-debug-suffix -0.5.1-2.fc32.x86_64
--unique-debug-src-base git-revise-0.5.1-2.fc32.x86_64 --run-dwz
--dwz-low-mem-die-limit 1000 --dwz-max-die-limit 11000 -S
debugsourcefiles.list /builddir/build/BUILD/git-revise-0.5.1
find: 'debug': No such file or directory" when running a mock build.
I have removed that line now.
--
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 1830306] Review Request: git-revise - Efficiently update, split, and rearrange git commits
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830306 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||ppi...@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 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 1830306] Review Request: git-revise - Efficiently update, split, and rearrange git commits
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830306 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ngomp...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa --- This should also be "BuildArch: noarch", which will remove the need for disabling debuginfo subpackage. -- 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 1830306] Review Request: git-revise - Efficiently update, split, and rearrange git commits
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830306
--- Comment #1 from Juan Orti Alcaine ---
Hello,
A few issues:
- The checksum of the tarball in the SRPM and upstream doesn't match. Please
make sure the SRPM is updated.
- You might want to rename the tarball using the Source URL as:
https://github.com/mystor/git-revise/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
but that's up to you.
- Why does it require setuptools? It should be a BuildRequires only.
- Please, open a bug report upstream with the included patch and reference it
in the spec file.
Source checksums
https://github.com/mystor/git-revise/archive/0.5.1.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
c1698eac93a8f0aea454a0d65f51e92ab32f946d893ef2b43fd78000c0837d50
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
3f64521eb056ff097eb282811459820e1afd138cf2de113d609051060459d24d
diff -r also reports differences
--
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 1830306] Review Request: git-revise - Efficiently update, split, and rearrange git commits
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830306 Juan Orti Alcaine changed: What|Removed |Added CC||j.orti.alca...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|j.orti.alca...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value 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 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
