[Bug 1287837] Review Request: python-borgbackup - A deduplicating backup program

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1287837



--- Comment #8 from Benjamin Pereto <benjamin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ---
>rm -rf %{buildroot}/%{srcname}.egg-info
added

> 
> -  >%attr(0755, root, root) %{python3_sitearch}/borg/*.so 
> 
> Why ?

rpmlint:
non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/lib64/python3.5/site-packages/borg/crypto.cpython-35m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so
775
And the packaging guidelines.

> - >%{__python3} setup.py check
> 
> No tests seem performed; please check.
> 
You are right, trying to implement the documented checks with tox or pytest

> - You are missing the installation of testing-only dependencies (as BuildRequires, defined in requirements.d in the source). tests can be called  with either tox or the py.test call in tox.ini.
I think tox is in this place an overkill and only nessecary to test against the
actual python3 active in each dist-version. Also it likes to install
dependencys from pypi, which should be handled in BuildRequires
So I experimented with the statement tox executes: py.test
the tests needing addintional requirements (which you pointet it out), where
one fedora rawhide does not contain: python3-pytest-benchmark
Excluding it breaks the testsuite.
I see 2 options:
- Patch to exclude benchmarking from testsuite
- Packaging pytest-benchmark
( pytest command in tox.ini also skipping it with --benchmark-skip )


> - >%files -n python3-%{srcname}

cleaned up

> - >%{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{srcname}}
> 
> 'python_provide' macro is not necessary in this case.

removed.

> - python3-borgbackup.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/python3-borgbackup/CHANGES.rst docs/changes.rst

Thanks, the symlink destination file is now beeing copied.


> - There is no man page.

Working on it. Man pages can be generated with sphinx, but I worked on the test
part.

> - Since this is not a library, but a CLI tool, shouldn't the package be called borgbackup (or borg)?

I'm open to that. The whole resides in lib/python../site-packages and the
'borg' cmd loads borg.archiver:main
Whats more common in the naming?


I updated the spec file. Since the package at the moment is not working
(testing failed, and manpage missing) I provide later a working SRPM.

-- 
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




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]