Bug 1113916

This package built on koji:  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7082207

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". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/simon/pkg/python-remoto/1113916-python-
     remoto/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: 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.
[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.
     Note: Test run failed
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Test run failed
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
     Note: Test run failed
[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: 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
     Note: Test run failed
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
     Note: Test run failed
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
     Note: Test run failed
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
     Note: Test run failed

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[!]: Buildroot is not present
     Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
[!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
     Note: %clean present but not required
[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).
[-]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: 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.
[-]: %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]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[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:
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: Mock build failed
     See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint
[-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
     Note: Test run failed
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.



Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python-remoto-0.0.17-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
          python-remoto-0.0.17-1.fc20.src.rpm
python-remoto.src: W: invalid-url Source0: remoto-0.0.17.tar.xz
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.


Requires
--------
python-remoto (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python-execnet


Provides
--------
python-remoto:
    python-remoto


Source checksums
----------------
Using local file /home/simon/pkg/python-remoto/remoto-0.0.17.tar.xz as upstream
file:///home/simon/pkg/python-remoto/remoto-0.0.17.tar.xz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 24e4daa42e082abf0fd87eee840b16aaf50c9ecff6e3b01e222d29a94e52faac
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 24e4daa42e082abf0fd87eee840b16aaf50c9ecff6e3b01e222d29a94e52faac

Taking for review ...

rpmlint on Rawhide:

python-remoto.src: W: invalid-url Source0: remoto-0.0.17.tar.xz
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

The Source0 URL is wrong.  It should be something like:
Source0: https://github.com/alfredodeza/remoto/archive/0.0.17.tar.gz
(See: https://github.com/alfredodeza/remoto/releases)

If that is not possible, then you should have a comment in the
spec file explaining briefly how to get/make the source tarball.

As a stylistic note (not required to be fixed), you can
remove all of the following lines from the spec file:

- Group:

- BuildRoot:

- The `rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT' in %install

- The entire %clean section

- %defattr(-,root,root,-)

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

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


Issues:
=======
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel


===== 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". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/rjones/1113916-python-remoto/licensecheck.txt

Could get upstream to add licenses to the individual source files,
but the LICENSE file at the top level is pretty clear about the
intended license.

[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: 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.
[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 10240 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]: 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.
[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.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: Buildroot is not present
     Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
     Note: %clean present but not required
[-]: 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.
[!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments

See comment 4

[-]: 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.

Checked in Koji.  It's also a noarch package.

[-]: %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]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[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:
[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: python-remoto-0.0.17-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
          python-remoto-0.0.17-1.fc21.src.rpm
python-remoto.src: W: invalid-url Source0: remoto-0.0.17.tar.xz
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint python-remoto
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
python-remoto (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python-execnet



Provides
--------
python-remoto:
    python-remoto

--------

Please see comment 4 and comment 5.  The package looks good once
those things are corrected as necessary.

Are these changes enough?

--- python-remoto.spec.1	2014-06-27 10:29:19.000000000 +0200
+++ python-remoto.spec.2	2014-06-27 12:46:08.521116160 +0200
@@ -4,14 +4,14 @@
 
 Name:           python-%{pkgname}
 Version:        0.0.17
-Release:        1%{?dist}
+Release:        2%{?dist}
 Summary:        Execute remote commands or processes
 
-Group:          Development/Libraries
 License:        MIT
 URL:            http://github.com/alfredodeza/remoto
+
+# http://github.com/alfredodeza/%{pkgname}/archive/%{version}.tar.gz
 Source0:        %{pkgname}-%{version}.tar.xz
-BuildRoot:      %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
 
 BuildArch:      noarch
 BuildRequires:  python-devel
@@ -32,20 +32,17 @@
 
 
 %install
-rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
 REMOTO_NO_VENDOR=1 %{__python} setup.py install -O1 --skip-build --root $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
 
  
-%clean
-rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
-
-
 %files
-%defattr(-,root,root,-)
 %doc LICENSE README.rst
 %{python_sitelib}/*
 
 
 %changelog
+* Fri Jun 27 2014 Federico Simoncelli <fsimonce> 0.0.17-2
+- specfile cleanups
+
 * Sun Jun 22 2014 Federico Simoncelli <fsimonce> 0.0.17-1
 - initial build

With the additional changes (comment 7), this package now meets
the Fedora packaging guidelines.  Therefore:

APPROVED by rjones
------------------

Updated spec/srpm:

Spec URL: http://fsimonce.fedorapeople.org//python-remoto.spec
SRPM URL: http://fsimonce.fedorapeople.org//python-remoto-0.0.17-2.fc21.src.rpm

Description:
Execute remote commands or processes.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: python-remoto
Short Description: Execute remote commands or processes
Upstream URL: http://github.com/alfredodeza/remoto
Owners: fsimonce
Branches: f21
InitialCC:

Fixing the flags.  I should have set fedora-review + when I
approved the review.

Wrong flag cleared.

Git done (by process-git-requests).

First build here:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=542616

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: python-remoto
New Branches: f19 f20 el6 epel7
Owners: ktdreyer fsimonce

Git done (by process-git-requests).