What about using weak dependency for python-blessings?

rdopkg uses colors extensivly and many outputs are significantly less readable without them so I'd leave it as hard dependency. I'll remove the comment :)

I plan to make rdopkg more modular in the future so let's just deal with the hard deps for now and I'll consider using weak dependencies in the future as I'm very curious about them :)

@Jakub: could you update the src,rpm too?

* drop the Group tag, unused now
* please switch to python versioned macros
* we need to review the python-rdoupdate package (same fixes should be applied to the existing package)

I'll submit new spec/srpm once both python-pymod2pkg and python-rdoupdate are available in Fedora.

I decided to split rdopkg into a framework and a tool, which will be quite a big change so I'll probably wait with the Fedora inclusion until the split is successful.

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/softwarefactory-project/rdopkg/master/rdopkg.spec
SRPM URL: https://jruzicka.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/rdopkg-0.45-0.fc25.src.rpm
Description: rdopkg is a tool for automating RPM packaging tasks such as managing patches, updating to a new version and much more.
Fedora Account System Username: jruzicka

Now with python3 package, tox and pbr support :)

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/softwarefactory-project/rdopkg/master/rdopkg.spec
SRPM URL: https://jruzicka.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/rdopkg-0.45.0-1.fc25.src.rpm

Why does the Python 2 version "Provides: rdopkg = %{version}-%{release}"? Why can't the Python 3 version do that in Fedora and EL7?

(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #8)
> Why does the Python 2 version "Provides: rdopkg = %{version}-%{release}"?

Because previously, the package was called just `rdopkg`, this is backward compat.

> Why can't the Python 3 version do that in Fedora and EL7?

The Python 3 support is rather fresh and not well tested. Furthermore, python3-bunch isn't available. I'll switch python3-rdopkg to provide rdopkg as soon as I'm confident in py3 support (in rdopkg and in EL).

> The Python 3 support is rather fresh and not well tested. Furthermore, python3-bunch isn't available. I'll switch python3-rdopkg to provide rdopkg as soon as I'm confident in py3 support (in rdopkg and in EL).

If there's a missing dependency, I'd rather block rdopkg from being included period. In addition, your current scheme does not allow for a seamless transition from Python 2 to Python 3 for rdopkg because in order to switch it, you'd have to obsolete the python2 version, which may not necessarily work. I would suggest splitting out /usr/bin/rdopkg into an rdopkg subpackage that Requires the python2 or python3 version depending on what you prefer.

For the "optional but recommended" thing, please use Recommends for Fedora. If it's not a hard dependency, don't make it one.

(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #10)
> > The Python 3 support is rather fresh and not well tested. Furthermore, python3-bunch isn't available. I'll switch python3-rdopkg to provide rdopkg as soon as I'm confident in py3 support (in rdopkg and in EL).
> 
> If there's a missing dependency, I'd rather block rdopkg from being included
> period. In addition, your current scheme does not allow for a seamless
> transition from Python 2 to Python 3 for rdopkg because in order to switch
> it, you'd have to obsolete the python2 version, which may not necessarily
> work. I would suggest splitting out /usr/bin/rdopkg into an rdopkg
> subpackage that Requires the python2 or python3 version depending on what
> you prefer.

Good suggestion, will do.

> For the "optional but recommended" thing, please use Recommends for Fedora.
> If it's not a hard dependency, don't make it one.

I wanted to wait until it's supported in latest EL to avoid %if but OK, I'll pave the way ;)

> I wanted to wait until it's supported in latest EL to avoid %if but OK, I'll pave the way ;)

I'm not sure how it could get supported in EL7, since RPM 4.11 and Yum don't support it. We'd be waiting for EL8...

Just do "%if 0%{?fedora} || 0%{?rhel} >= 8"

(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #12)
> > I wanted to wait until it's supported in latest EL to avoid %if but OK, I'll pave the way ;)
> 
> I'm not sure how it could get supported in EL7, since RPM 4.11 and Yum don't
> support it. We'd be waiting for EL8...
> 
> Just do "%if 0%{?fedora} || 0%{?rhel} >= 8"

I've addressed your suggestions in https://softwarefactory-project.io/r/#/c/9546/

Please either leave +1/-1 there (you can login with github) or let me know here if it's OK.

> If there's a missing dependency, I'd rather block rdopkg from being included
> period.

Although missing python3-bunch is being investigated, it is absolutely no reason to block because rdopkg has on-demand import and the missing dep is only needed for `rdopkg cbsbuild` command which is CLI and CLI depends on python2 version so it's all good.

I specifically built rdopkg in a way so that one broken subcommand doesn't block entire project and missing deps only surface for commands that really use them. Unlike usual python LOAD ALL THE MODULES and then really use 2 of them ;)

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/softwarefactory-project/rdopkg/master/rdopkg.spec
SRPM URL: https://jruzicka.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/rdopkg-0.45.0-3.fc25.src.rpm

Note this package built successfully in my copr on f2{5,6,7}, el7 and rawhide: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jruzicka/rdopkg/build/597985/

W: file-size-mismatch rdopkg-0.45.0.tar.gz

is a one time issue due to .spec being included in tarball and I regenerated that without updating PyPI version. Once reviewd, .spec will move to fedora distgit so this will no longer be an issue.

Looks good to me at this point. That said, Haikel needs actually do the approval. :)

@Haikel, do you still want to review this package?

1. Please fix the source mismatch, but since you're upstream maintainer, I trust you
for using published tarballs. Anyway, it does build with the other one
2. I'd move generic build time dependencies git and asciidoc outside of the python2 subpackage
3. Minor item, rdopkg main package does not need to include license file since it pulls it from python{2,3}-rdopkg.


Other, I hereby approve this package into Fedora Packages Collection, just make sure to fix
the items pointed above.


Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
  in the spec URL.
  Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in
  /home/hguemar/1246199-rdopkg/diff.txt
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL


===== MUST items =====

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.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Apache", "*No copyright* Apache", "Unknown or generated", "*No
     copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 156 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in
     /home/hguemar/1246199-rdopkg/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 266240 bytes in 10 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[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]: 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.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     python2-rdopkg , python3-rdopkg
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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.
[-]: %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:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: rdopkg-0.45.0-3.fc28.noarch.rpm
          python2-rdopkg-0.45.0-3.fc28.noarch.rpm
          python3-rdopkg-0.45.0-3.fc28.noarch.rpm
          rdopkg-0.45.0-3.fc28.src.rpm
python2-rdopkg.noarch: W: no-documentation
python2-rdopkg.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/rdopkg-2 ./rdopkg
python2-rdopkg.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/rdopkg-2.7 ./rdopkg
python2-rdopkg.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rdopkg-2
python2-rdopkg.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rdopkg-2.7
python3-rdopkg.noarch: W: no-documentation
python3-rdopkg.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rdopkg-3
python3-rdopkg.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rdopkg-3.6
rdopkg.src: W: file-size-mismatch rdopkg-0.45.0.tar.gz = 115065, https://pypi.io/packages/source/r/rdopkg/rdopkg-0.45.0.tar.gz = 114902
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
python3-rdopkg.noarch: W: no-documentation
python3-rdopkg.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rdopkg-3
python3-rdopkg.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rdopkg-3.6
python2-rdopkg.noarch: W: no-documentation
python2-rdopkg.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/rdopkg-2 ./rdopkg
python2-rdopkg.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/rdopkg-2.7 ./rdopkg
python2-rdopkg.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rdopkg-2
python2-rdopkg.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rdopkg-2.7
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.



Requires
--------
python3-rdopkg (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    git-core
    git-review
    python(abi)
    python3-PyYAML
    python3-future
    python3-koji
    python3-paramiko
    python3-pbr
    python3-pyOpenSSL
    python3-pymod2pkg
    python3-requests
    python3-setuptools
    python3-six

python2-rdopkg (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    PyYAML
    git-core
    git-review
    pyOpenSSL
    python(abi)
    python-bunch
    python-future
    python-paramiko
    python-pbr
    python-pymod2pkg
    python-requests
    python-setuptools
    python-six
    python2-koji

rdopkg (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python2
    python2-rdopkg



Provides
--------
python3-rdopkg:
    python3-rdopkg
    python3.6dist(rdopkg)
    python3dist(rdopkg)

python2-rdopkg:
    python-rdopkg
    python2-rdopkg
    python2.7dist(rdopkg)
    python2dist(rdopkg)

rdopkg:
    rdopkg



Source checksums
----------------
https://pypi.io/packages/source/r/rdopkg/rdopkg-0.45.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 1f0c45141787262866e198b0da2c0f90ed99c25afd15b0c9f9252b4a0615702f
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : dfa173ead1a72116e0df957afdb623e6524aade4648ed4ada7e85222a568a376
diff -r also reports differences


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1246199
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rdopkg

(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.stg.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rdopkg. You may modify the branch "f26" in about 10 minutes.

Please disregard the above comment. That was testing in stage.

Package is in repos