[Bug 1201338] Review Request: python-uniseg - A pure Python module to determine Unicode text segmentation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201338

Parag AN(पराग)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 CC||panem...@gmail.com
 Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW)
 Resolution|--- |DEFERRED
Last Closed||2016-08-10 12:42:00



--- Comment #14 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
Well then based on comment#11 lets close this.

Murilo, when you want to continue here please just reopen and provide updated
SPEC and SRPM links.


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449
[Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter
response should be blocking this bug.
-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1201338] Review Request: python-uniseg - A pure Python module to determine Unicode text segmentation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201338

William Moreno  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC|williamjmore...@gmail.com   |
   Assignee|williamjmore...@gmail.com   |nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Flags|fedora-review?  |
   |needinfo?(muri...@br.ibm.co |
   |m)  |



-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1201338] Review Request: python-uniseg - A pure Python module to determine Unicode text segmentation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201338

William Moreno  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(muri...@br.ibm.co
   ||m)



--- Comment #13 from William Moreno  ---
Any update?

-- 
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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1201338] Review Request: python-uniseg - A pure Python module to determine Unicode text segmentation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201338



--- Comment #12 from William Moreno  ---
I can wait for the updated spec.

-- 
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 1201338] Review Request: python-uniseg - A pure Python module to determine Unicode text segmentation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201338

Murilo Opsfelder Araújo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(muri...@br.ibm.co |
   |m)  |



--- Comment #11 from Murilo Opsfelder Araújo  ---
Hi, William.

This turned into a low priority for me.  What if we close this bug for now and
when I have an updated package containing fixes for issues you pointed out I
reopen it?  Does that work?

Thanks a lot for your 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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1201338] Review Request: python-uniseg - A pure Python module to determine Unicode text segmentation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201338

William Moreno  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(muri...@br.ibm.co
   ||m)



--- Comment #10 from William Moreno  ---
Any update?

-- 
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 1201338] Review Request: python-uniseg - A pure Python module to determine Unicode text segmentation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201338



--- Comment #9 from William Moreno  ---
Package Review
==
1. There is a docs directory than you can build with sphinx and include in a
doc subpackage.

2. You can get the License text from upstream to include it in the spec:
https://bitbucket.org/emptypage/uniseg-python/src/d6436d00e293cb1b4876def8501959da5b6716bd/LICENSE?fileviewer=file-view-default

3. Include the README.txt with %doc also include uniseg/docs/uniseg.ja.html

4. There is a docs directory than you can build with sphinx and include in a
doc subpackage.

= MUST items =

Generic:
[Pass]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[Na]:   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.
[Pass]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[NA]:   License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[Pass]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[Pass]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[Pass]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[Pass]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[NA]:   Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[NA]:   Development files must be in a -devel package
[NA]:   Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[Pass]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[Pass]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[Pass]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[Pass]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[Pass]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[Pass]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[Pass]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[Pass]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[Pass]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[Pass]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[Pass]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[Pass]: Package installs properly.
[Pass]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
[Pass]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[Pass]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[Pass]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[Pass]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[Pass]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[Pass]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[Pass]: Dist tag is present.
[Pass]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[Pass]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[Pass]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[Pass]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[Pass]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[Pass]: Package is not relocatable.
[Pass]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[Pass]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[Pass]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[Pass]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. 
[Pass]: 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 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
 python3-uniseg
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[ ]: Spec use %global instead of %define 

[Bug 1201338] Review Request: python-uniseg - A pure Python module to determine Unicode text segmentation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201338

Murilo Opsfelder Araújo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(muri...@br.ibm.co |
   |m)  |



--- Comment #8 from Murilo Opsfelder Araújo  ---
(In reply to Upstream Release Monitoring from comment #7)
> mopsfelder's scratch build of python-uniseg-0.7.1-0.el6.src.rpm for rawhide
> completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12503363

(This level of automation scares me.  Thanks, Fedora guys!)

William, comment 7 has the build I submitted with the latest 0.7.1 version of
python-uniseg.

I'd appreciate if you can review it.  Thanks!

-- 
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 1201338] Review Request: python-uniseg - A pure Python module to determine Unicode text segmentation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201338



--- Comment #7 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
mopsfelder's scratch build of python-uniseg-0.7.1-0.el6.src.rpm for rawhide
completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12503363

-- 
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 1201338] Review Request: python-uniseg - A pure Python module to determine Unicode text segmentation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201338

William Moreno  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(muri...@br.ibm.co
   ||m)



--- Comment #6 from William Moreno  ---
Any update here?

-- 
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 1201338] Review Request: python-uniseg - A pure Python module to determine Unicode text segmentation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201338

William Moreno  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #5 from William Moreno  ---
OK, I will take this review, for me there is no need to close this bug.

-- 
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 1201338] Review Request: python-uniseg - A pure Python module to determine Unicode text segmentation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201338

Murilo Opsfelder Araújo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(muri...@br.ibm.co |
   |m)  |



--- Comment #4 from Murilo Opsfelder Araújo  ---
Hello, William.

I do.  I'm focused on other topics at the moment but I think I can provide an
updated src.rpm next month.

Until there, do you prefer to close this bug and I re-open it further?

-- 
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 1201338] Review Request: python-uniseg - A pure Python module to determine Unicode text segmentation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201338

William Moreno  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||muri...@br.ibm.com,
   ||williamjmore...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|williamjmore...@gmail.com
  Flags||needinfo?(muri...@br.ibm.co
   ||m)



--- Comment #3 from William Moreno  ---
Do you want to continue this 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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1201338] Review Request: python-uniseg - A pure Python module to determine Unicode text segmentation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201338

Murilo Opsfelder Araujo mopsfel...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||mopsfel...@gmail.com



--- Comment #2 from Murilo Opsfelder Araujo mopsfel...@gmail.com ---
Hello, Michael.

Thanks a lot for your time on reviewing this package.  I did update the package
and would really appreciate if you could take a look at it again.

(In reply to Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) from comment #1)
 [not a full review - just some drive-by comments]
 
  * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
  * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions
  * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
 

I fixed file permissions in %files section.  I also removed Buildroot
directive.

As to %license, I asked upstream maintainer to add a LICENSE file with a copy
of the MIT license.

 
  Version:0.7.1
 
 The included README says 0.7.0, so in case you've packaged a pre-release
 snapshot, it should either follow the pre-release versioning guidelines when
 keeping Version: 0.7.1 or switch to Version: 0.7.0 and follow the
 post-release guidelines:
 
  * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Version_and_Release
 

This time, I packaged a released version, i.e. 0.7.0.

 
  %files
  %{python2_sitelib}/*egg-info
  %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg
  %defattr(0755,root,root,-)
  %{_bindir}/uniseg-dbpath
  %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg/wraptest.py
  %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg/samples/uniwrap.py
  %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg/samples/unibreak.py
  %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg/samples/wxwrapdemo.py
  %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg/sentencebreaktest.py
  %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg/graphemeclustertest.py
  %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg/wordbreaktest.py
 
 This %files section looks much as if it is the result of trial-and-error
 build attempts:
 
  %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg
  ...
  %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg/wraptest.py
 
 If  %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg  is a directory, the line
 
   %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg
 
 includes the directory and everything (anything!) in it. That is, all the
 following lines lines in the %files section, which specify individual .py
 files, are redundant. You also get warnings by rpmbuild: warning: File
 listed twice:
 https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/20/9210020/build.log
 
 Many packagers add a trailing slash to directory entries in %files sections
 to make them more explicit, more readable, e.g.
 
   %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg/
 
 does the same thing as
 
   %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg
 
 but makes it more clear to the reader that it is supposed to be a directory.
 
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:
 Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories
 
 The tool rpmls and rpm (rpm -qlvp …) are your friends when examining
 package contentes / files lists.
 

I listed %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg/ in %files for readability.

 
  %if 0%{?with_python3}
  %files -n python3-uniseg
  %{python3_sitelib}/*egg-info
  %{python3_sitelib}/uniseg
  %defattr(0755,root,root,-)
  %{_bindir}/uniseg-dbpath
  %{python3_sitelib}/uniseg/wraptest.py
  %{python3_sitelib}/uniseg/samples/uniwrap.py
  %{python3_sitelib}/uniseg/samples/unibreak.py
  %{python3_sitelib}/uniseg/samples/wxwrapdemo.py
  %{python3_sitelib}/uniseg/sentencebreaktest.py
  %{python3_sitelib}/uniseg/graphemeclustertest.py
  %{python3_sitelib}/uniseg/wordbreaktest.py
  %endif # with_python3
 
 Same here.
 

Fixed that too.

 
  # strip python3 from shebang line
  sed -i'' -e 's,^.*#!/usr/bin/python3.*$,#!/usr/bin/python,g' 
  %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/uniseg-dbpath
 
 The file is included in both packages, so in package python3-uniseg
 /usr/bin/uniseg-dbpath would execute via /usr/bin/python which may be Python
 2.
 

Since setup.py is called twice with different python interpreters (one with
python2 and another with python3), the last installed /usr/bin/uniseg-dbpath
file ends up having /usr/bin/python3 in the shebang line.

 
  BuildArch:  noarch
  BuildRequires:  sqlite
 
  Requires:   sqlite
 
 Does it really need sqlite (no specific arch) at run-time?
 
   $ grep sqlite * -R
   Binary file uniseg/__pycache__/db.cpython-34.pyo matches
   Binary file uniseg/__pycache__/db.cpython-34.pyc matches
   Binary file uniseg/ucd.sqlite3 matches
   uniseg/db.py:import sqlite3
   uniseg/db.py:dbname = 'ucd.sqlite3'
   uniseg/db.py:_conn = sqlite3.connect(_dbpath)
 
 Typically, a comment should explain such explicit Requires:
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires
 

I removed sqlite from Requires.

 [...]
 
 Consider pointing the fedora-review tool at review tickets like this:
 fedora-review -b 1201338

Spec URL: 

[Bug 1201338] Review Request: python-uniseg - A pure Python module to determine Unicode text segmentation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201338

Murilo Opsfelder Araújo muri...@br.ibm.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)




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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1201338] Review Request: python-uniseg - A pure Python module to determine Unicode text segmentation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201338



--- Comment #1 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) 
bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
[not a full review - just some drive-by comments]

 * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
 * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions
 * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag


 Version:0.7.1

The included README says 0.7.0, so in case you've packaged a pre-release
snapshot, it should either follow the pre-release versioning guidelines when
keeping Version: 0.7.1 or switch to Version: 0.7.0 and follow the
post-release guidelines:

 * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Version_and_Release


 %files
 %{python2_sitelib}/*egg-info
 %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg
 %defattr(0755,root,root,-)
 %{_bindir}/uniseg-dbpath
 %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg/wraptest.py
 %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg/samples/uniwrap.py
 %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg/samples/unibreak.py
 %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg/samples/wxwrapdemo.py
 %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg/sentencebreaktest.py
 %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg/graphemeclustertest.py
 %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg/wordbreaktest.py

This %files section looks much as if it is the result of trial-and-error build
attempts:

 %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg
 ...
 %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg/wraptest.py

If  %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg  is a directory, the line

  %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg

includes the directory and everything (anything!) in it. That is, all the
following lines lines in the %files section, which specify individual .py
files, are redundant. You also get warnings by rpmbuild: warning: File listed
twice: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/20/9210020/build.log

Many packagers add a trailing slash to directory entries in %files sections to
make them more explicit, more readable, e.g.

  %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg/

does the same thing as

  %{python2_sitelib}/uniseg

but makes it more clear to the reader that it is supposed to be a directory.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories

The tool rpmls and rpm (rpm -qlvp …) are your friends when examining
package contentes / files lists.


 %if 0%{?with_python3}
 %files -n python3-uniseg
 %{python3_sitelib}/*egg-info
 %{python3_sitelib}/uniseg
 %defattr(0755,root,root,-)
 %{_bindir}/uniseg-dbpath
 %{python3_sitelib}/uniseg/wraptest.py
 %{python3_sitelib}/uniseg/samples/uniwrap.py
 %{python3_sitelib}/uniseg/samples/unibreak.py
 %{python3_sitelib}/uniseg/samples/wxwrapdemo.py
 %{python3_sitelib}/uniseg/sentencebreaktest.py
 %{python3_sitelib}/uniseg/graphemeclustertest.py
 %{python3_sitelib}/uniseg/wordbreaktest.py
 %endif # with_python3

Same here.


 # strip python3 from shebang line
 sed -i'' -e 's,^.*#!/usr/bin/python3.*$,#!/usr/bin/python,g' 
 %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/uniseg-dbpath

The file is included in both packages, so in package python3-uniseg
/usr/bin/uniseg-dbpath would execute via /usr/bin/python which may be Python 2.


 BuildArch:  noarch
 BuildRequires:  sqlite

 Requires:   sqlite

Does it really need sqlite (no specific arch) at run-time?

  $ grep sqlite * -R
  Binary file uniseg/__pycache__/db.cpython-34.pyo matches
  Binary file uniseg/__pycache__/db.cpython-34.pyc matches
  Binary file uniseg/ucd.sqlite3 matches
  uniseg/db.py:import sqlite3
  uniseg/db.py:dbname = 'ucd.sqlite3'
  uniseg/db.py:_conn = sqlite3.connect(_dbpath)

Typically, a comment should explain such explicit Requires:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires

[...]

Consider pointing the fedora-review tool at review tickets like this:
fedora-review -b 1201338

-- 
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