[Bug 1262645] New: Review Request: python-tortilla - A tiny library for creating wrappers around web APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262645
Bug ID: 1262645 Summary: Review Request: python-tortilla - A tiny library for creating wrappers around web APIs Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: rene.ribaud@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://uggla.free.fr/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-tortilla.spec SRPM URL: http://uggla.free.fr/rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-tortilla-0.4.1-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: A tiny library for creating wrappers around web APIs Fedora Account System Username: uggla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262645
Giuseppe Paterno' gpaterno@gpaterno.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |gpaterno@gpaterno.com
--- Comment #1 from Giuseppe Paterno' gpaterno@gpaterno.com --- This is an unofficial review of the package.
Quick note, you can remove %check as there's no actual checks specified. Make sure you don't need to backport to EPEL6 or EPEL7, as you might need to put some macro checks.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
===== 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: "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gpaterno/reviews/review-python- tortilla/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). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: 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. [-]: 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. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [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]: 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. [x]: 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-tortilla , python3-tortilla [ ]: 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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262645
--- Comment #2 from René Ribaud rene.ribaud@gmail.com --- Hello,
Thanks for reviewing the pkg. Here is a couple of answers about your comments.
1) no tests The upstream package is not provided with unitary tests. I kept the %check section in the spec file to remember me to implement that as soon as upstream will implement some of them.
2) Installation fails Unfortunately, I think I submitted this package a bit too early. You can notice that the package depends of colorclass, formats which are not in the release yet and prevent the package installation. I have a request for them : https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258405 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262642
So I think this pkg is on old until, colorclass and format will be integrated into Fedora.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262645
--- Comment #3 from René Ribaud rene.ribaud@gmail.com --- Colorclass and formats available in the repos. Tortilla should build and be ready for the review now.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262645
Julien Enselme jujens@jujens.eu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |jujens@jujens.eu Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jujens@jujens.eu Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 from Julien Enselme jujens@jujens.eu --- - In the python3 package, I think you got the wrong deps: %package -n python3-%{srcname} Requires: python-requests Requires: python-six Requires: python3-formats Requires: python3-colorclass
It should be: %package -n python3-%{srcname} Requires: python3-requests Requires: python3-six Requires: python3-formats Requires: python3-colorclass
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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/1262645-python- tortilla/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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
Python3 requires are not correct.
[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. [-]: 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. [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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: 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. [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. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). Python3 dependencies are not correct.
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2-tortilla , python3-tortilla [?]: 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. [?]: 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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python2-tortilla-0.4.1-1.fc24.noarch.rpm python3-tortilla-0.4.1-1.fc24.noarch.rpm python-tortilla-0.4.1-1.fc24.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Requires -------- python3-tortilla (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-requests python-six python3-colorclass python3-formats
python2-tortilla (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-requests python-six python2-colorclass python2-formats
Provides -------- python3-tortilla: python3-tortilla
python2-tortilla: python-tortilla python2-tortilla
Source checksums ---------------- http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/t/tortilla/tortilla-0.4.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0026d374b927b03f559e6923103e6747c98d0fa7de827e469c06c3f06f1c42ef CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0026d374b927b03f559e6923103e6747c98d0fa7de827e469c06c3f06f1c42ef https://raw.githubusercontent.com/redodo/tortilla/master/LICENSE : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : aad0e5568519088aa0ee343c4fb7b5115c9150d282582ff7f36b4d2b7cd0b2be CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : aad0e5568519088aa0ee343c4fb7b5115c9150d282582ff7f36b4d2b7cd0b2be
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1262645 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262645
--- Comment #5 from René Ribaud rene.ribaud@gmail.com --- Spec URL: http://uggla.free.fr/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-tortilla.spec SRPM URL: http://uggla.free.fr/rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-tortilla-0.4.1-2.fc22.src.rpm Description: A tiny library for creating wrappers around web APIs Fedora Account System Username: uggla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262645
--- Comment #6 from René Ribaud rene.ribaud@gmail.com --- Corrected package dependencies with feedbacks from Julien. New one should be ready for review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262645
--- Comment #7 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- uggla's scratch build of python-tortilla-0.4.1-2.fc22.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11754229
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262645
Julien Enselme jujens@jujens.eu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Julien Enselme jujens@jujens.eu --- I think you should add a line break between each changelog entry to make it more readable.
Apart from that, it looks good. Approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262645
--- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/python-tortilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262645
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-tortilla-0.4.1-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-59a83b8c1d
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262645
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262645
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-tortilla-0.4.1-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-9aeacc73f4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262645
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-tortilla-0.4.1-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update python-tortilla' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-9aeacc73f4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262645
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-tortilla-0.4.1-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update python-tortilla' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-59a83b8c1d
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262645
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-tortilla-0.4.1-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262645
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2015-11-30 16:21:41
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262645
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-tortilla-0.4.1-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla