[Bug 1289970] Review Request: python-openstacksdk - An SDK for building applications to work with OpenStack

Thu Dec 17 18:01:34 UTC 2015

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289970

Paul Belanger <pabelanger at redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |pabelanger at redhat.com

--- Comment #3 from Paul Belanger <pabelanger at redhat.com> ---
Learning the ropes, so here is a review.  Only major thing was a few lint
warnings.  Plus the failures reported my fedora-review.

All in all, looks good.

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

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

===== 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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages,
     /usr/lib/python3.5
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.5/site-
     packages, /usr/lib/python3.5
[ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
     packages/openstack(python-openstack-nose-plugin)
[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.
[x]: 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.
[ ]: 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 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[ ]: 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]: 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]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[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.
[ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     python2-openstacksdk , python2-openstacksdk-tests ,
     python3-openstacksdk , python3-openstacksdk-tests , python-
     openstacksdk-doc
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: 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: python2-openstacksdk-0.7.1-2.fc24.noarch.rpm
          python2-openstacksdk-tests-0.7.1-2.fc24.noarch.rpm
          python3-openstacksdk-0.7.1-2.fc24.noarch.rpm
          python3-openstacksdk-tests-0.7.1-2.fc24.noarch.rpm
          python-openstacksdk-doc-0.7.1-2.fc24.noarch.rpm
          python-openstacksdk-0.7.1-2.fc24.src.rpm
python2-openstacksdk-tests.noarch: W: no-documentation
python3-openstacksdk-tests.noarch: W: no-documentation
6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
python2-openstacksdk-tests.noarch: W: no-documentation
python3-openstacksdk-tests.noarch: W: no-documentation
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

Requires
--------
python3-openstacksdk (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3-keystoneauth1
    python3-os-client-config
    python3-oslo-utils
    python3-six
    python3-stevedore

python2-openstacksdk-tests (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python2-openstacksdk

python3-openstacksdk-tests (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3-openstacksdk

python2-openstacksdk (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python-keystoneauth1
    python-os-client-config
    python-oslo-utils
    python-six
    python-stevedore

python-openstacksdk-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

Provides
--------
python3-openstacksdk:
    python3-openstacksdk

python2-openstacksdk-tests:
    python2-openstacksdk-tests

python3-openstacksdk-tests:
    python3-openstacksdk-tests

python2-openstacksdk:
    python-openstacksdk
    python-openstacksdk(x86-64)
    python2-openstacksdk

python-openstacksdk-doc:
    python-openstacksdk-doc

Source checksums
----------------
https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/o/openstacksdk/openstacksdk-0.7.1.tar.gz
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
620b4303a2742e17605427772e6468cb59bb36ee3ca74b41aeec2226e06fc842
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
620b4303a2742e17605427772e6468cb59bb36ee3ca74b41aeec2226e06fc842

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1289970 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R,
PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

-- 
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