https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300689
Bug ID: 1300689 Summary: Review Request: python-pika-pool - Pools for pikas Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jpena@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/python-pika-pool/python-pika-pool.spec SRPM URL: https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/python-pika-pool/python-pika-pool-0.1.3-1.fc2... Description: Pika connection pooling inspired by:
flask-pika sqlalchemy.pool.Pool
Fedora Account System Username: jpena
Koji scratch build available at http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12634192
Please note the following:
- License file was not available in the GitHub repo, it is currently included as Source1. https://github.com/bninja/pika-pool/issues/7 has been opened to fix this. - python3 subpackage creation is currently disabled, since there is no python3 package for python-pika.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300689
Chandan Kumar chkumar246@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |chkumar246@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300689
hguemar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |hguemar@redhat.com Blocks| |1290163 | |(RDO-MITAKA,RDO-MITAKA-REVI | |EWS)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290163 [Bug 1290163] Tracker: Blockers and Review requests for new RDO Mitaka packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300689
Chandan Kumar chkumar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |chkumar@redhat.com, | |jpena@redhat.com Flags| |needinfo?(jpena@redhat.com)
--- Comment #1 from Chandan Kumar chkumar@redhat.com --- python3-pika is available. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=733848
Please update the spec file to python3.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300689
--- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- jpena's scratch build of python-pika-pool-0.1.3-2.fc24.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13114135
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300689
--- Comment #3 from Javier Peña jpena@redhat.com --- Thanks for the comment. I have updated the spec to enable python3 builds, and it works fine for me.
SPEC: https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/python-pika-pool/python-pika-pool.spec SRPM: https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/python-pika-pool/python-pika-pool-0.1.3-2.fc2...
Koji scratch build available at http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13114135
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300689
--- Comment #4 from hguemar@redhat.com --- rechecked and package name should be python-pika_pool, we only normalize dot in upstream names, underscores should be kept https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Separators
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300689
Javier Peña jpena@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(jpena@redhat.com) |
--- Comment #5 from Javier Peña jpena@redhat.com --- Oh, I didn't realize of that, the PyPi name was pika-pool so I got confused.
Updated files are:
SPEC: https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/python-pika_pool/python-pika_pool.spec SRPM: https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/python-pika_pool/python-pika_pool-0.1.3-3.fc2...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300689
Chandan Kumar chkumar246@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Chandan Kumar chkumar246@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/chandankumar/review-python-pika_pool/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.4/site- packages/__pycache__(python3-decorator, python3-six, python3-libs, python3-augeas, langtable-python3, python3-setuptools, python3-ntplib) [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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: [ ]: 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-pika_pool , python3-pika_pool [ ]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python2-pika_pool-0.1.3-3.fc23.noarch.rpm python3-pika_pool-0.1.3-3.fc23.noarch.rpm python-pika_pool-0.1.3-3.fc23.src.rpm python2-pika_pool.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pikas -> pikes, pitas python2-pika_pool.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Pika -> Pike, Pisa, Pita python2-pika_pool.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pika -> pike, pita, pica python2-pika_pool.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sqlalchemy -> alchemy python3-pika_pool.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pikas -> pikes, pitas python3-pika_pool.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Pika -> Pike, Pisa, Pita python3-pika_pool.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pika -> pike, pita, pica python3-pika_pool.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sqlalchemy -> alchemy python-pika_pool.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pikas -> pikes, pitas python-pika_pool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Pika -> Pike, Pisa, Pita python-pika_pool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pika -> pike, pita, pica python-pika_pool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sqlalchemy -> alchemy 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Requires -------- python3-pika_pool (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-pika
python2-pika_pool (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-pika
Provides -------- python3-pika_pool: python3-pika_pool
python2-pika_pool: python-pika_pool python2-pika_pool
Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/pika-pool/pika-pool-0.1.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f3985888cc2788cdbd293a68a8b5702a9c955db6f7b8b551aeac91e7f32da397 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f3985888cc2788cdbd293a68a8b5702a9c955db6f7b8b551aeac91e7f32da397
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -u https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300689 Buildroot used: fedora-23-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
The Package looks good to go. APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300689
Chandan Kumar chkumar246@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |chkumar246@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300689
--- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/python-pika_pool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300689
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-pika_pool-0.1.3-3.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-9a8b3a3c3d
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300689
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300689
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-pika_pool-0.1.3-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-9a8b3a3c3d
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300689
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ngompa13@gmail.com
--- Comment #10 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- @Javier, please use python2-pika as opposed to python-pika for the Python 2 dependency. It'd be good to not use unversioned python module names.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300689
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-pika_pool-0.1.3-3.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=1300689
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2016-02-28 07:20:44
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla