https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1821189
--- Comment #5 from Hirotaka Wakabayashi <hiwkby(a)yahoo.com> ---
Hello Aniket,
Thank you for your fixes, but there are some issues to fix. Please check my
review.
1. Using `python` command
Could you please fix the code where `python` is used? because Fedora's
Python package guildelines says that "/usr/bin/python (as well as /usr/bin/env
python and similar) MUST NOT be used in shebang lines or as a dependency of a
package." Please see:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_multip...
I think the code should be modified like this:
```
*** tests/test_linting.py.orig 2020-06-27 06:13:38.434409598 +0000
--- tests/test_linting.py 2020-06-27 06:13:50.992640111 +0000
***************
*** 18,24 ****
out = (
sp.check_output(
[
! "python",
"-m",
"snakemake",
"--lint",
--- 18,24 ----
out = (
sp.check_output(
[
! "python3",
"-m",
"snakemake",
"--lint",
```
2. Runtime dependencies
The spec file of this package contains unsatisfied runtime dependencies.
I think `datrie`, `ratelimiter` and `toposort` are also needed to submit
because they still don't exist in Fedora's repository[1].
As you know Koji is the software that builds RPM packages for the Fedora
project. We can confirm packages successfully build on Fedora supported
architectures by using Koji but we can't confirm correctness of runtime
dependencies.
Reviews must check where runtime dependencies[2] are met but runtime
dependencies of this package are unsatisfied in my environment(fc32).
```
$ sudo dnf install -y ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/snakemake-5.19.3-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm
Last metadata expiration check: 1:29:53 ago on Sat 27 Jun 2020 04:57:44 AM UTC.
Error:
Problem: conflicting requests
- nothing provides python3.8dist(datrie) needed by
snakemake-5.19.3-1.fc32.x86_64
- nothing provides python3.8dist(ratelimiter) needed by
snakemake-5.19.3-1.fc32.x86_64
- nothing provides python3.8dist(toposort) needed by
snakemake-5.19.3-1.fc32.x86_64
(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)
```
3. fedora-review report
Here is the output of fedora-review for reference. fedora-review tried to
install the binary package, but it failed to install it.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
- 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.
Note: Unversionned Python dependency found.
See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Python/#_dependencies
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: 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.
[?]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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 1 files.
[!]: 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]: 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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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.
[!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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.
[x]: 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 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:
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: Mock build failed
See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_use_rpmlint
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Installation errors
-------------------
INFO: mock.py version 2.3 starting (python version = 3.8.3)...
Start: init plugins
INFO: selinux enabled
Finish: init plugins
INFO: Signal handler active
Start: run
Start: chroot init
INFO: calling preinit hooks
INFO: enabled root cache
INFO: enabled package manager cache
Start: cleaning package manager metadata
Finish: cleaning package manager metadata
INFO: enabled HW Info plugin
Mock Version: 2.3
INFO: Mock Version: 2.3
Finish: chroot init
INFO: installing package(s):
/home/vagrant/FedoraReview/1821189-snakemake/results/snakemake-5.19.3-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
ERROR: Command failed:
# /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/
--releasever 33 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local
--disableplugin=spacewalk install
/home/vagrant/FedoraReview/1821189-snakemake/results/snakemake-5.19.3-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
--setopt=tsflags=nocontexts
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: snakemake-5.19.3-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
snakemake-5.19.3-1.fc33.src.rpm
snakemake.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Workflow -> Work flow,
Work-flow, Workforce
snakemake.x86_64: W: unexpanded-macro %description -l C %python_provide
snakemake.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workflow -> work
flow, work-flow, workforce
snakemake.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Workflows -> Work
flows, Work-flows, Workloads
snakemake.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workflows -> work
flows, work-flows, workloads
snakemake.x86_64: E: no-binary
snakemake.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/snakemake/executors/jobscript.sh 644 /bin/sh
snakemake.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary snakemake
snakemake.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary snakemake-bash-completion
snakemake.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Workflow -> Work flow,
Work-flow, Workforce
snakemake.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workflow -> work flow,
work-flow, workforce
snakemake.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Workflows -> Work flows,
Work-flows, Workloads
snakemake.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workflows -> work flows,
work-flows, workloads
snakemake.src:67: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 14, tab: line
67)
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 12 warnings.
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/snakemake/snakemake/archive/v5.19.3/snakemake-5.19.3.t...
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
a971a6cbf0a7738faafb254d9a1093703a6811543295747a26183c833dc49ef3
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
a971a6cbf0a7738faafb254d9a1093703a6811543295747a26183c833dc49ef3
Requires
--------
snakemake (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/python3
python(abi)
python3.9dist(appdirs)
python3.9dist(configargparse)
python3.9dist(datrie)
python3.9dist(docutils)
python3.9dist(gitpython)
python3.9dist(jsonschema)
python3.9dist(nbformat)
python3.9dist(psutil)
python3.9dist(pyyaml)
python3.9dist(ratelimiter)
python3.9dist(requests)
python3.9dist(setuptools)
python3.9dist(toposort)
python3.9dist(wrapt)
Provides
--------
snakemake:
python3.9dist(snakemake)
python3dist(snakemake)
snakemake
snakemake(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (68531f4) last change: 2020-05-31
Command line :try-fedora-review -b 1821189
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api, Python
Disabled plugins: Java, Ocaml, PHP, Perl, Haskell, R, SugarActivity, Ruby,
fonts
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks in advance,
Hirotaka Wakabayashi
--
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