[Bug 1262643] New: Review Request: python-minibelt - One-file utility module filled with helper functions for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262643
Bug ID: 1262643 Summary: Review Request: python-minibelt - One-file utility module filled with helper functions for Python 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-minibelt.spec SRPM URL: http://uggla.free.fr/rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-minibelt-0.1.1-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: One-file utility module filled with helper functions for day to day Python programming. This is a subset of batbelt, with only the most used features, packed in a tiny file, and Python 2.7/3.3 compatible. Fedora Account System Username: uggla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262643
Ilya Gradina ilya.gradina@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ilya.gradina@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Ilya Gradina ilya.gradina@gmail.com --- This is an unofficial review of the package. some notes: 1) use macros %global sum One-file utility module filled with helper functions for Python .............. - Summary: One-file utility module filled with helper functions for Python + Summary: sum .............. 2) no tests 3) url - > https://github.com/sametmax/minibelt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262643
--- Comment #2 from René Ribaud rene.ribaud@gmail.com --- Hello,
Thanks for the review. 1) I'm going to update the package in this way.
2) 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.
3) I don't catch the issue with the URL ? Do you mean that the URL should point to the github site instead of pypi ?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262643
--- Comment #3 from Ilya Gradina ilya.gradina@gmail.com --- Hi René!
URL: The full URL for more information about the program (e.g. the project website). ....... https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#SPEC_file_overvi... ...... I think that the site should be specified: - https://github.com/sametmax/minibelt but I could be wrong.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262643
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 --- - The URL can point to the project page on pypi. It presents the README, the tarballs and has a link to the github page if the user wish to report an issue. I personally find the pypi page more useful than the github page. - I don't know if the patch is really useful nor if the import of open from io is necessary. - Please ask upstream to add a license file.
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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/1262643-python- minibelt/licensecheck.txt [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. License file is not included.
[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. [X]: 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 40960 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: [X]: 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-minibelt , python3-minibelt [?]: Package functions as described. [X]: Latest version is packaged. [X]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [X]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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-minibelt-0.1.1-1.fc24.noarch.rpm python3-minibelt-0.1.1-1.fc24.noarch.rpm python-minibelt-0.1.1-1.fc24.src.rpm python2-minibelt.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US batbelt -> bat belt, bat-belt, Beltane python3-minibelt.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US batbelt -> bat belt, bat-belt, Beltane python-minibelt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US batbelt -> bat belt, bat-belt, Beltane 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Requires -------- python3-minibelt (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi)
python2-minibelt (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi)
Provides -------- python3-minibelt: python3-minibelt
python2-minibelt: python-minibelt python2-minibelt
Source checksums ---------------- http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/m/minibelt/minibelt-0.1.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : fad2a7fc16dc5e9b25ee49df8b0c43572789423557c89325c4bdb23ad08ca859 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fad2a7fc16dc5e9b25ee49df8b0c43572789423557c89325c4bdb23ad08ca859
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 1262643 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
Everything looks good. Approved!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262643
--- Comment #5 from René Ribaud rene.ribaud@gmail.com --- Thanks for the review Julien.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262643
René Ribaud rene.ribaud@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #6 from René Ribaud rene.ribaud@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-minibelt Short Description: One-file utility module filled with helper functions for Python Upstream URL: http://pypi.python.org/pypi/minibelt Owners: uggla Branches: f22 f23 epel7 InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262643
--- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- This SCM request method has been deprecated. Please see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageDB_admin_requests.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262643
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262643
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-minibelt-0.1.1-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-36d2414106
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262643
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262643
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-minibelt-0.1.1-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-aefb9ebb39
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262643
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-minibelt-0.1.1-1.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-minibelt' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-36d2414106
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262643
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-minibelt-0.1.1-1.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-minibelt' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-aefb9ebb39
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262643
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-minibelt-0.1.1-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262643
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2015-10-14 02:56:25
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262643
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-minibelt-0.1.1-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla