https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1385244
Bug ID: 1385244 Summary: Review Request: pew - Manage multiple Python virtual environments Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: bochecha@daitauha.fr QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/packages/pew.spec SRPM URL: https://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/packages/pew-0.1.24-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: Python Env Wrapper is a set of commands to manage multiple virtual environments. Pew can create, delete and copy your environments, using a single command to switch to them wherever you are, while keeping them in a single (configurable) location.
Virtualenvs make it easier to work on more than one project at a time without introducing conflicts in their dependencies.
Pew is completely shell-agnostic and thus works on bash, zsh, fish, powershell, etc.
Fedora Account System Username: bochecha
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1385244
Mathieu Bridon bochecha@daitauha.fr changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |1385240, 1385237
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1385237 [Bug 1385237] Review Request: python-pythonz-bd - Manage python installations in your system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1385240 [Bug 1385240] Please provide the /usr/bin/virtualenv-MAJOR symlinks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1385244 Bug 1385244 depends on bug 1385240, which changed state.
Bug 1385240 Summary: Please provide the /usr/bin/virtualenv-MAJOR symlinks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1385240
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1385244 Bug 1385244 depends on bug 1385237, which changed state.
Bug 1385237 Summary: Review Request: python-pythonz-bd - Manage python installations in your system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1385237
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1385244
VincentS vincent@casperlefantom.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |vincent@casperlefantom.net
--- Comment #1 from VincentS vincent@casperlefantom.net --- I looked at your review request and I have some comments about it.
I noted there is no license file, you may tell to upstream to add it.
The second thing, the compilation fails when I try to build the SRPM in mock. Here is the error: No matching package to install: 'python3-pythonz-bd >= 1.11.2' Not all dependencies satisfied Error: Some packages could not be found.
According to upstream requirements, pythonz-bd for Python3 has still the same name: pythonz-bd. https://github.com/berdario/pew/blob/master/requirements.txt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1385244
--- Comment #2 from Mathieu Bridon bochecha@daitauha.fr ---
The second thing, the compilation fails when I try to build the SRPM in mock.
I know, I added pythonz-bd to Fedora this afternoon. :)
It should be in Rawhide and F26 already (or tomorrow), and it should be in F25 testing very soon.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1385244
--- Comment #3 from VincentS vincent@casperlefantom.net --- Ok, I tried this and it works. =)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1385244
--- Comment #4 from Mathieu Bridon bochecha@daitauha.fr --- My apologies for not coming back to this sooner. Especially since you were trying to review this as part of your sponsorship process Vincent. :(
Here is a new package.
Spec URL: https://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/packages/pew.spec SRPM URL: https://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/packages/pew-0.1.26-1.fc25.src.rpm
This is a new upstream version, and I added the README.md file (which wasn't included in the 0.1.24 tarball) as %doc. This file contains a copy of the MIT license, so hopefully that should satisfy the legal requirements.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1385244
--- Comment #5 from VincentS vincent@casperlefantom.net --- Don't worry Mathieu, so here is an informal review for pew package.
REVIEW:
+ OK - NA X ISSUE
+ Package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + Spec file matches base package name. + Spec has consistant macro usage. + Meets Packaging Guidelines. + License + License field in spec matches + License file included in package
+ Spec in American English + Spec is legible. + Sources match upstream sha256sum: $ sha256sum -b ~/pew-0.1.26.tar.gz ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/pew-0.1.26.tar.gz 0e52051393777ebf93b6ed883a049b615e0555978a578b682043f69c7ea8a6bb */opt/builder//pew-0.1.26.tar.gz 0e52051393777ebf93b6ed883a049b615e0555978a578b682043f69c7ea8a6bb */opt/builder//rpmbuild/SOURCES/pew-0.1.26.tar.gz
- Package needs ExcludeArch + BuildRequires correct - Spec handles locales/find_lang - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. + Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. + Package is code or permissible content. - Doc subpackage needed/used. + Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
- Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig - .so files in -devel subpackage. - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - .la files are removed.
- Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
+ Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. + Package has no duplicate files in %files. + Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. + Package owns all the directories it creates. X Rpmlint output: 3 errors. $ rpmlint SPECS/pew.spec /var/lib/mock/fedora-26-x86_64/result/pew-0.1.26-1.fc26.src.rpm /var/lib/mock/fedora-26-x86_64/result/pew-0.1.26-1.fc26.noarch.rpm SPECS/pew.spec:12: W: unversioned-explicit-provides python-%{name} SPECS/pew.spec:13: W: unversioned-explicit-provides python3-%{name} pew.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Virtualenvs -> Virtual pew.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zsh -> sh, ssh, ash pew.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US powershell -> power shell, power-shell, powers hell pew.src:12: W: unversioned-explicit-provides python-%{name} pew.src:13: W: unversioned-explicit-provides python3-%{name} pew.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Virtualenvs -> Virtual pew.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zsh -> sh, ssh, ash pew.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US powershell -> power shell, power-shell, powers hell pew.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/pew/pew.py /usr/bin/env python pew.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/pew/pew.py 644 /usr/bin/env python pew.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/pew/shell_config/complete_deploy /usr/bin/env python pew.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pew 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 11 warnings.
+ final provides and requires are sane.
SHOULD Items:
+ Should build in mock. + Should build on all supported archs - Should function as described. - Should have sane scriptlets. - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. + Should have dist tag + Should package latest version - check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews)
Issues : - I think, I remember that it's forbidden to use this shebang in Fedora package : /usr/bin/env python
For me, you may just resolve rpmlint issues otherwise all the rest is ok.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1385244
--- Comment #6 from Mathieu Bridon bochecha@daitauha.fr --- Thanks for the detailed review Vincent.
Concerning those shebangs, the first one should get removed https://github.com/berdario/pew/pull/141
And I have a feeling the second one also will: https://github.com/berdario/pew/issues/142
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1385244
--- Comment #7 from Mathieu Bridon bochecha@daitauha.fr --- Hey, sorry for the long silence!
Here's a new package, which should fix the two rpmlint issues.
Spec URL: https://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/packages/pew.spec SRPM URL: https://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/packages/pew-1.1.0-1.fc26.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1385244
Felix Schwarz fschwarz@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fschwarz@fedoraproject.org
--- Comment #8 from Felix Schwarz fschwarz@fedoraproject.org --- seems like bug 1525570 is a review request for the same package?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1385244
Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed| |2017-12-19 11:19:19
--- Comment #9 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- Closing this one as per discussion in bug 1525570.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1525570 ***
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org