https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1240116
--- Comment #21 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl> ---
Thanks for taking on the review!
(In reply to William Moreno from comment #20)
Package Review
==============
1. The doc and common subpackage both ship the license text, I will recomend
to include the license text in the common packages and include a weak
dependencie in doc:
Suggest: python-music21-common
I don't think this is allowed. The license file
MUST be installed with any
subcombination of packages.
Also use weak dependencies in python2 and 3 subpackage to suggest the
doc
subpackage.
Good idea, done.
2. The common subpackage include the python2.7 files than are linked
to the
python3 subpackage. As part of the move of Fedora to python3 by default I
will recomend to split the common subpackage to ship the python3.5 files.
Currently the common subpackage will requires python2 as the owner of the
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ directory so python3-music21 will require
python2 to install python-music21-common.
I moved them.
There are many warning about symlinks in both packages, also please
check
this issue.
I think that the symlinks are fine. rpmlint does not understand
symlinks.
The best aproach to this common content is to place it in /usr/share
but
this will require some mayor patching to the code and this will require to
work with upstream.
I could move the files in common to /usr/share and provide
symlinks from
both subpackages. I don't know if this would be better.
3. Include in python2 and 3 %files
%exclude %{python2_sitelib}/music21/LICENSE
The license file is in the common subpackage.
Done.
3. Consider to include the test directory in both packages into a
devel
subpackage (python2-name-devel and python3-name-devel), most user will not
run the test locally and this will let then get a smaller package to
download.
4. Also both packages have a demos directory than do not look to be necesary
in run time and can be packaged as subpackages, you can use weak depencies
to suggest the user to install the demos subpackages.
I don't think splitting
it up like this makes sense. It is essentially
a user program (using python as its interface), not a library that is
installed as a dependency for other things. Demos can be used as documentation
and are useful when using the package. They are not too big too.
5. Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. Builds fails
in
secondary arches, but looks like there is a issue with the packaging root.
Hm,
I'll try to rebuild.
RPMLint:
1: python2-music21.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python-matplotlib Not
need work, it is a rpmlint issue
I actually submitted a PR for that, but it
doesn't seem like it will be
merged:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpmlint/pull/58
2: python3-music21.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/music21/corpus/cpebach
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/music21/corpus/cpebach If you change the
common to python3 files this warning will be fixed but you will need to
check if the link in python2 works fine.
3: python3-music21.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/music21/alpha/trecento/exceldiff.py 644
Sedout the shebang of this files
Done.
4: python-music21-common.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/music21/corpus/josquin/laPlusDesPlus.abc
Request upstream to fix it or propose a patch to update it.
https://github.com/cuthbertLab/music21/pull/122
5: python-music21-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/python-music21/html/_sources/tutorials/advancedGraphing.txt
See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Remove_DOS_line_endings Done.
I need to update to 2.2.1.
--
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