Bug 1071507

Hi Jordan,

I can review this package if you do not have "time-related" objections ....

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

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

===== 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]: 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.
     I think the following are unused:
     python-crypto
     python-iso8601
[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.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[?]: 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 %doc.
[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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist
[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.

Python:
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
[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

     Despite not being used via egg interface as described in the
     previous item, Python packaging guidelines state that eggs should
     be provided always. See:

     https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Eggs#When_to_Provide_Eggs

     The last line of %install removes the egg info, and should be
     removed.  Egg info should be added to %files section as per:

     https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Eggs#Providing_Eggs_using_Setuptools

[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel

===== 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
     Newer version available:
     https://github.com/openstack/python-tuskarclient/archive/0.1.1.tar.gz
[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.
     No %check section is present.
[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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[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:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached
     diff).
     See: (this test has no URL)
[-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python-tuskarclient-0.1.0-3.fc21.noarch.rpm
          python-tuskarclient-0.1.0-3.fc21.src.rpm
python-tuskarclient.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US https -> HTTP
python-tuskarclient.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US github -> git hub, git-hub, thuggish
python-tuskarclient.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tuskar
python-tuskarclient.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US https -> HTTP
python-tuskarclient.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US github -> git hub, git-hub, thuggish
python-tuskarclient.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openstack -> open stack, open-stack, opens tack
python-tuskarclient.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tuskar -> Tunguska
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint python-tuskarclient
python-tuskarclient.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US https -> HTTP
python-tuskarclient.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US github -> git hub, git-hub, thuggish
python-tuskarclient.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tuskar
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /tmp/1071507-python-tuskarclient/srpm/python-tuskarclient.spec	2014-03-04 13:55:04.157162201 -0500
+++ /tmp/1071507-python-tuskarclient/srpm-unpacked/python-tuskarclient.spec	2014-02-28 20:53:45.000000000 -0500
@@ -52,4 +52,7 @@
 
 %changelog
+* Fri Feb 28 2014 Jordan OMara <jomara> - 0.1.0-3
+- added .egg-info
+
 * Mon Feb 24 2014 Angus Thomas <athomas> - 0.1.0-2
 - Replace explicit paths with macros


Requires
--------
python-tuskarclient (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python2
    python(abi)
    python-babel
    python-crypto
    python-iso8601
    python-keystoneclient
    python-prettytable
    python-requests
    python-simplejson
    python-six
    python-stevedore



Provides
--------
python-tuskarclient:
    python-tuskarclient



Source checksums
----------------
https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/python-tuskarclient/python-tuskarclient-0.1.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 84e02cea0122045afc8fdd0a457eda5dd0bad2afff751a78e13e707f2f2aacd9
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 84e02cea0122045afc8fdd0a457eda5dd0bad2afff751a78e13e707f2f2aacd9


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1071507 -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, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

Thanks Eck! Updated SRPM and SPEC:

fixes: new src @ pypi, fixed egg info. i am skipping %check for now

spec: http://fedorapeople.org/~jomara/python-tuskarclient.spec
srpm: http://fedorapeople.org/~jomara/python-tuskarclient-0.1.1-1.fc18.src.rpm

The Requires are still present for:
python-crypto
python-iso8601

Can you confirm/deny those are actually required?  I don't see any reference to them by grepping through the code.

The egg info is still not fixed.  This returns zero results:
find rpms-unpacked/ -name '*egg*'

New source at pypi is latest 0.1.1 version and looks good now.  +1.

Spec file linked matches the one in the srpm now.  +1.

If you want to omit a %check section, that's OK for now since it is a SHOULD item and not a MUST item.  Please consider enabling it as soon as feasible.

Thanks eck. Fixed egg info and removed crypto req. iso8601 IS required.

spec: http://fedorapeople.org/~jomara/python-tuskarclient.spec
srpm: http://fedorapeople.org/~jomara/python-tuskarclient-0.1.1-2.fc20.src.rpm

Looks good.  Approved!

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: python-tuskarclient
Short Description: python-tuskarclient is a Python client and a command-line interface for Tuskar.Owners: jomara
Branches: f20 f21 epel7
InitialCC: jomara

No owner specified, don't request f21, devel is automatic.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: python-tuskarclient
Short Description: python-tuskarclient is a Python client and a command-line interface for Tuskar.
Owners: jomara
Branches: f20 epel7
InitialCC: jomara

Git done (by process-git-requests).

python-tuskarclient-0.1.3-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-tuskarclient-0.1.3-1.fc20

python-tuskarclient-0.1.3-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.