https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155400 nicolas.vieville@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |nicolas.vieville@univ-valen | |ciennes.fr --- Comment #1 from nicolas.vieville@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Hello, As a candidate packager for Fedora (I need a sponsor), I can make an unofficial review of your package if you don't mind. In order to make it more easy using fedora-review, there's a couple of things I would modify in your spec file. I'm not a proven Fedora Python packager, so if one of them wants to make any comment, they are welcome. First, in order to reflect Fedora packaging rules, you should rename your spec file to match the name of the package according to the specific rules dedicated to python modules (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28python_modules.29). It should be set as python-pygeoip.spec. Then, to follow this recommendation the packages names should be python-pygeoip and python3-pygeoip in the spec file. If we look at http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/python-setuptools.git/tree/python-setuptools.spec file cited as an example in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Building_more_than_once we can see that the first test macro is: %if 0%{?fedora} The release version of Fedora is not evaluated. In each section BuildRequires for the python2 package and the python3 package, you should add: BuildRequires: python-nose BuildRequires: python-tox BuildRequires: curl BuildRequires: tar in order to be able to proceed with the test provided upstream (see below about the %check section). As the upstream developer provides some tests, the packaging guide invite you to use them. Here there's no makefile in order to achieve them. The only solution I would use (proven python packager are welcome about that) is to make them manually by adding a %check section as this one for example (taken and adapted from the makefile available on the github but not on the pipy URL): %check rm -rf maxmind-geoip-samples.tar.gz tests/data mkdir -p tests/data curl -s https://www.defunct.cc/maxmind-geoip-samples.tar.gz | tar -zx -C tests # Test with the only available python env in Fedora sed -i -e 's/\(envlist = \)\(.*$\)/\1py27,py34/g' tox.ini tox %if 0%{?with_python3} pushd %{py3dir} rm -rf maxmind-geoip-samples.tar.gz tests/data mkdir -p tests/data curl -s https://www.defunct.cc/maxmind-geoip-samples.tar.gz | tar -zx -C tests # Test with the only available python env in Fedora sed -i -e 's/\(envlist = \)\(.*$\)/\1py27,py34/g' tox.ini tox popd %endif # with_python3 Here, I'm not sure if it is necessary to proceed with the tests on the two packages (python2 and python3 - confirmation needed). The sed command replaces the value of the envlist variable in the tox.ini file to reflect the real python env available in Fedora (e.g. ptyhon2.7 and python3.4). As the tests dependencies were correctly set in the BuildRequires sections curl, tar and tox (python-tox) are available. In each %files section, it could be possible to simplify the directives beginning with %{python2_sitelib} (respectively %{python3_sitelib}) by only one: %{python2_sitelib}/* respectively %{python3_sitelib}/* While testing the packages build with such a modified spec file with rpmlint, it states that "hostname" in the description is not the correct spelling: spelling-error %description -l en_US hostname -> host name, host-name, hostage Don't know if it should be corrected (real correct spelling against real usage in IT). I'll do an unofficial review using fedora-review tool, once you proposed a new spec file containing what I proposed or what proven python packagers will indicate to do. Feel free to ask for any help if needed. Cordially, -- NVieville -- 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 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review