https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401414
Bug ID: 1401414 Summary: Review Request: python3-neovim - Python 3 client to Neovim Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: asn@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/python3-neovim/python3-neovim.spec SRPM URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/python3-neovim/python3-neovim-0.1.12-1.fc25.s... Description: Library for scripting Nvim processes through its msgpack-rpc API. Fedora Account System Username: asn
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401414
Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |asn@redhat.com Depends On| |1394789 Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jhrozek@redhat.com
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394789 [Bug 1394789] Review Request: neovim - Vim-fork focused on extensibility and agility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401414
Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401414
--- Comment #1 from Igor Gnatenko ignatenko@redhat.com --- It should be python-neovim. For example, see python-aiohttp spec.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401414
Filip SzymaĆski fszymanski@onet.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fszymanski@onet.pl
--- Comment #2 from Filip SzymaĆski fszymanski@onet.pl --- In this case we should have python2 and python3 package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401414
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com --- Can you have two specs in one project? We could name the projects python-neovim and then just drop two spec files to build for python2 and python3.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401414
--- Comment #4 from Filip SzymaĆski fszymanski@onet.pl --- One spec file for python2 and python3.
Example: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_common_spec_file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401414
--- Comment #5 from Filip SzymaĆski fszymanski@onet.pl --- See also: http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/dperson/neovim/python-neovim....
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401414
--- Comment #6 from Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com --- As the neovim requirements are already pretty high and I only plan to support rawhide and f25. I would prefer to only build for python3.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401414
Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |python3-neovim - Python 3 |python-neovim - Python 3 |client to Neovim |client to Neovim
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401414
--- Comment #7 from Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/python-neovim/python-neovim.spec SRPM URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/python-neovim/python-neovim-0.1.12-1.fc25.src...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401414
Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |python-neovim - Python 3 |python-neovim - Python |client to Neovim |client to Neovim
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401414
--- Comment #8 from Filip SzymaĆski fszymanski@onet.pl --- Your spec file rewritten for python2 and python3: https://fszymanski.fedorapeople.org/python-neovim.spec
A lot of Vim plugins only supports Python 2. It would be good to have both packages. I will gladly co-maintain this package with you if you need some help.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401414
--- Comment #9 from Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com --- Co-maintaining is much appreciated.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401414
--- Comment #10 from Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/python-neovim/python-neovim.spec SRPM URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/python-neovim/python-neovim-0.1.12-2.fc25.src...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401414
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Hrozek jhrozek@redhat.com --- I think the package looks good, so I'm giving review+
For posterity, here is fedora-review output: Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 36 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/remote/jhrozek/1401414-python- neovim/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. [n/a]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [n/a]: 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. [x]: 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. [n/a]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [n/a]: 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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [n/a]: 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). [n/a]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2-neovim , python3-neovim [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [n/a]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [n/a]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python2-neovim-0.1.12-2.fc26.noarch.rpm python3-neovim-0.1.12-2.fc26.noarch.rpm python-neovim-0.1.12-2.fc26.src.rpm python2-neovim.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US msgpack -> mudpack python2-neovim.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rpc -> rec, rps, rpm python3-neovim.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US msgpack -> mudpack python3-neovim.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rpc -> rec, rps, rpm python-neovim.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US msgpack -> mudpack python-neovim.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rpc -> rec, rps, rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
Requires -------- python2-neovim (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): neovim python(abi) python2-greenlet python2-msgpack
python3-neovim (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): neovim python(abi) python3-greenlet python3-msgpack
Provides -------- python2-neovim: python-neovim python2-neovim python2.7dist(neovim) python2dist(neovim)
python3-neovim: python3-neovim python3.5dist(neovim) python3dist(neovim)
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/neovim/python-client/archive/0.1.12/python-client-0.1.12.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a0ec9d157d385d86c2a07f9f9daa20cc172160d1782bf9a40d8e9724a01026c1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a0ec9d157d385d86c2a07f9f9daa20cc172160d1782bf9a40d8e9724a01026c1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401414
--- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-neovim
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401414
Jakub Hrozek jhrozek@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401414
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-neovim-0.1.12-2.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-125fc45785
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401414
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401414
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-neovim-0.1.12-3.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-2016-125fc45785
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401414
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2016-12-15 18:30:48
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-neovim-0.1.12-3.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401414 Bug 1401414 depends on bug 1394789, which changed state.
Bug 1394789 Summary: Review Request: neovim - Vim-fork focused on extensibility and agility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394789
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401414
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-neovim-0.1.12-3.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org