https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1768054
Bug ID: 1768054 Summary: Review Request: python-should - Python version of the should assert library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: davidmccheyne@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dmccheyne/Should/fedora-rawh...
SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dmccheyne/Should/fedora-rawh...
Description: Python version of the should assert library which borrows from pyshould. Should is intended as a readable, expressive DSL allowing expectations or assertions to be written in almost natural language. Its primary use case is in unit testing, replacing the need for Python's native assertX methods.
Fedora Account System Username: dmccheyne
This is my second (see also 1766375) package, so I'm in need of a sponsor. I recently started a new job with a company that pushes a lot of things back out to the community, so my teammate suggested this as a fairly simple first package to get to know the community and the process. Cheers!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1768054
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ngompa13@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com ---
This is my second (see also 1766375) package, so I'm in need of a sponsor. I recently started a new job with a company that pushes a lot of things back out to the community, so my teammate suggested this as a fairly simple first package to get to know the community and the process. Cheers!
Sponsor no longer required. :)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1768054
Elliott Sales de Andrade quantum.analyst@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |quantum.analyst@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Elliott Sales de Andrade quantum.analyst@gmail.com --- It's a bit of a pet peeve of mine to not have summaries that are "Language-specific version of some other language-specific library"; how is anyone supposed to know what that is? Plus, the language is in the package name, so that's redundant.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1768054
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- (In reply to David McCheyne from comment #0)
Provide better Summary/Description that is not Python version of X. Just describe what should is/does. Also the description must stay below 80 characters per line.
- Also the first description is not ok, just copy the other one:
%description should
- Use macros, a better name and tar.gz:
Source0: https://github.com/Ralph-Wang/should/archive/v%%7Bversion%7D/%%7Bname%7D-%%7...
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", "Expat License". 25 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-should/review-python- should/licensecheck.txt [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. [!]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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. [x]: %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: python3-should-0.5.4-1.fc32.noarch.rpm python-should-0.5.4-1.fc32.src.rpm python3-should.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pyshould -> should python3-should.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pyshould -> should python3-should.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US assertX -> assert X, assert, asserts python3-should.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C Its primary use case is in unit testing, replacing the need for Python's native assertX methods. python-should.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pyshould -> should python-should.src: W: description-shorter-than-summary python-should.src:47: W: macro-in-comment %{__python3} 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings.
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review
Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com has canceled Package Review package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org's request for Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com's needinfo: Bug 1768054: Review Request: python-should - Python version of the should assert library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1768054
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1768054
Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(zebob.m@gmail.com |needinfo?(davidmccheyne@gma |) |il.com)
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org