https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572928
Bug ID: 1572928 Summary: Review Request: python-fabric3 - Python3-compatible fork of Fabric Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: athmanem@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://athmane.fedorapeople.org/review/python-fabric3.spec SRPM URL: https://athmane.fedorapeople.org/review/python-fabric3-1.13.1.post1-1.fc28.s... Description: Fabric3 is a fork of Fabric to provide compatability with Python 3.4+. The port still works with Python 2.7.
Fedora Account System Username: athmane
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572928
Athmane Madjoudj athmanem@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1370016
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370016 [Bug 1370016] Port fabric to Python 3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572928
Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |mhroncok@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mhroncok@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572928
--- Comment #1 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- 1. I'd go a bit further in the description, explaining what it does (e.g. add fabrics description as second paragraph or similar).
2. "The port still works with Python 2.7." in description may be confusing since the package is py3 only in Fedora.
3. You say "fudge not compatible with py3 yet", but than you do "Remove ver deps: sed -i 's/fudge<1.0/fudge/' setup.py". Care to explain? I feel a bit confused.
4. as a side note, how hard would it be to fix the test? https://travis-ci.org/mathiasertl/fabric/jobs/205270658
5. several things to provide for users' ease: python3-fabric, fabric3, fab3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572928
--- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- Package Review ==============
6. Fix the license tag (to BSD) 7. Fix the version, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#More_complex_versioning 8. Fix "compatability" typo
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Should be BSD, not ASL 2.0! [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 10240 bytes in 2 files. [!]: 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]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [?]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: 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. [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.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-fabric3-1.13.1.post1-1.fc29.noarch.rpm python-fabric3-1.13.1.post1-1.fc29.src.rpm python3-fabric3.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US compatability -> comparability, compatibility, communicability python3-fabric3.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fab3 python-fabric3.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US compatability -> comparability, compatibility, communicability 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Actual spelling-error!
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory python3-fabric3.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US compatability -> comparability, compatibility, communicability python3-fabric3.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/mathiasertl/fabric <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> python3-fabric3.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fab3 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Actual spelling-error!
Requires -------- python3-fabric3 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3-paramiko python3-six
Provides -------- python3-fabric3: python3-fabric3 python3.6dist(fabric3) python3dist(fabric3)
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/mathiasertl/fabric/archive/1.13.1.post1/fabric-1.13.1.pos... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9d3e23725cf9d9fd554b09840e9aaaf2309da8932ce97776e33e6611797766c2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9d3e23725cf9d9fd554b09840e9aaaf2309da8932ce97776e33e6611797766c2
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (7737a2a) last change: 2015-11-26 Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 1572928 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, BATCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, EPEL7, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572928
--- Comment #3 from Athmane Madjoudj athmanem@gmail.com --- (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #1)
1,2,5 => done (will post update shortly)
3. Sorry for confusion, that bit was residue from testing with python2
4. The test-suite is inherited from upstream fabric, upstream preferred to plan a switch to mock instead of updating to fudge 1.x (didn't happen yet) since fudge is no longer maintained [1][2]
[1] https://bitbucket.org/kumar303/fudge/issues/27/test-failures-with-python-3 [2] https://github.com/fabric/fabric/issues/203
Quote from [1]: "Hi, thanks for the report. I don't use fudge anymore because Mock has surpassed it in features, stability, and Python support. I'd be happy to merge in any patches but it would probably be easier if we switch everything to a github project. If anyone has time to do that I'd greatly appreciate it."
Quote from [2]: "I should actually close this - I've been using mock on my newer projects and find it a bit more usable than Fudge (even Fudge 1.x). Fabric 1.x is nearing EOL so updating its dependencies isn't really a priority anymore."
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572928
--- Comment #4 from Athmane Madjoudj athmanem@gmail.com --- (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #2)
Package Review
- Fix the license tag (to BSD)
- Fix the version, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#More_complex_versioning 8. Fix "compatability" typo
Fixed
Spec URL: https://athmane.fedorapeople.org/review/python-fabric3.spec SRPM URL: https://athmane.fedorapeople.org/review/python-fabric3-1.13.1-2.fc28.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572928
--- Comment #5 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- %extra_ver should by part of the release.
Release: N.%{extra_ver}%{?dist}
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572928
--- Comment #6 from Athmane Madjoudj athmanem@gmail.com --- My bad, fixed in -3
Spec URL: https://athmane.fedorapeople.org/review/python-fabric3.spec SRPM URL: https://athmane.fedorapeople.org/review/python-fabric3-1.13.1-3.post1.fc28.s...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572928
Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572928
--- Comment #8 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-fabric3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572928
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-fabric3-1.13.1-3.post1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-ed7e3d0184
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572928
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572928
--- Comment #11 from Athmane Madjoudj athmanem@gmail.com --- *** Bug 1572927 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572928
Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |athmanem@gmail.com Flags| |needinfo?(athmanem@gmail.co | |m)
--- Comment #12 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- What's the status here?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572928
Athmane Madjoudj athmanem@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(athmanem@gmail.co | |m) |
--- Comment #13 from Athmane Madjoudj athmanem@gmail.com --- Fabric 2.x (same upstream) has provided Py3 support however it has new API. python-fabric3 will be kept (temporarily) to provide 1.x API, for eg: python-avocado still depend on 1.x api
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572928
--- Comment #14 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- But what's the status of this bugzilla?
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org