Bug 1122388

Summary: Review Request: playitagainsam - Record and replay interactive terminal sessions.
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Clint Savage <herlo1>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: kumarpraveen.nitdgp, mail, package-review
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2020-07-29 04:23:30 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:

Description Clint Savage 2014-07-23 06:52:08 UTC
Spec URL: http://herlo.fedorapeople.org/rpms/playitagainsam.spec
SRPM URL: http://herlo.fedorapeople.org/rpms/playitagainsam-0.3.0-1.fc19.src.rpm
Description: Record and replay interactive terminal sessions.
Fedora Account System Username: herlo

Comment 1 Clint Savage 2014-07-23 06:53:44 UTC
*** Bug 1076463 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 2 Clint Savage 2014-07-23 06:55:20 UTC
Comments and review are already in bug 1076463. Please refer to this bug for review. I created a new bug as requested in the referenced bug.

Comment 3 Praveen Kumar 2016-08-20 09:28:53 UTC
A Formal package review.

Package Review

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

- 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.
  Note: License file LICENSE.txt is not marked as %license

- Latest version is packaged.
  In the specfile I can see 0.3.0 but 0.4.0 is available on pypi. (https://pypi.python.org/pypi/playitagainsam)

- URL section in the spec contain wrong home page for source.
  Currently spec file contain http://retask.readthedocs.org/en/latest/index.html which is not belong to this package

===== MUST items =====

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/prkumar/fedora-
[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
[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.
[-]: 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]: 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
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
[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 =====

[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.
[x]: Package functions as described.
[!]: 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
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[?]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
     Note: %define requiring justification: %{!?python_sitelib: %define
     python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import
     get_python_lib; print get_python_lib()")}
[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
[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.

===== EXTRA items =====

[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.

Checking: playitagainsam-0.3.0-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
playitagainsam.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unix -> UNIX, Unix, uni
playitagainsam.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ttyrec -> Tyre
playitagainsam.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US playerpiano -> player piano, player-piano, ballplayer
playitagainsam.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pias
playitagainsam.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unix -> UNIX, Unix, uni
playitagainsam.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ttyrec -> Tyre
playitagainsam.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US playerpiano -> player piano, player-piano, ballplayer
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
playitagainsam.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pias
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

playitagainsam (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


Source checksums
https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/playitagainsam/playitagainsam-0.3.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 302fe5fc8a3b4ee70d493faf298cb0f2907f50c4867be6de7ce7f6338aa8d74b
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 302fe5fc8a3b4ee70d493faf298cb0f2907f50c4867be6de7ce7f6338aa8d74b

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1122388
Buildroot used: fedora-23-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP

Comment 4 Package Review 2020-07-10 00:50:10 UTC
This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry
it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software
into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the

You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version
available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase
chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you
need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at

Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned
and will be closed.
Thank you for your patience.