Bug 1179949

Apply same comments of bug 1179947

btw, the flag fedora-review in ? must be selected by the reviewer, not by packager

Changes applied accordingly to your comments, new files are stored here:

Spec URL: https://robyduck.fedorapeople.org/packages/SPECS/python-txsocksx.spec
SRPM URL: https://robyduck.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-txsocksx-1.13.0.3-2.fc21.src.rpm

Added a better check section and need python-twisted to build the package correctly. Please look at:

Spec URL: https://robyduck.fedorapeople.org/packages/SPECS/python-txsocksx.spec
SRPM URL: https://robyduck.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-txsocksx-1.13.0.3-3.fc21.src.rpm

Fixing path permissions again.

Spec URL: https://robyduck.fedorapeople.org/packages/SPECS/python-txsocksx.spec
SRPM URL: https://robyduck.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-txsocksx-1.13.0.3-4.fc21.src.rpm

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". 20 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/echevemaster/test-packages/1179949-python-
     txsocksx/licensecheck.txt
[-]: 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.
[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 20480 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:
[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:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[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.
[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:
[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.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python-txsocksx-1.13.0.3-4.fc22.noarch.rpm
          python-txsocksx-1.13.0.3-4.fc22.src.rpm
python-txsocksx.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/txsocksx-1.13.0.3-py2.7.egg-info 02755L
python-txsocksx.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/share/doc/python-txsocksx 02755L
python-txsocksx.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/txsocksx/test 02755L
python-txsocksx.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/txsocksx 02755L
python-txsocksx.src:42: W: macro-in-comment %{__python2}
python-txsocksx.src:43: W: macro-in-comment %{__python2}
python-txsocksx.src:44: W: macro-in-comment %{__python2}
python-txsocksx.src:45: W: macro-in-comment %{__python2}
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 4 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root@localhost /]# rpmlint python-txsocksx
python-txsocksx.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/txsocksx-1.13.0.3-py2.7.egg-info 02755L
python-txsocksx.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/share/doc/python-txsocksx 02755L
python-txsocksx.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/txsocksx/test 02755L
python-txsocksx.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/txsocksx 02755L
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 0 warnings.
]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root@localhost /]# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
python-txsocksx (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python-parsley
    python-twisted



Provides
--------
python-txsocksx:
    python-txsocksx



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/habnabit/txsocksx/archive/1fb04622941b1579eb743380242cd82b340b75a5/txsocksx-1fb04622941b1579eb743380242cd82b340b75a5.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 84abec90c4c5cfeb9eb65e1a3a26c04fbd4c97b6e097a1aa7fdd0c04deaf0268
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 84abec90c4c5cfeb9eb65e1a3a26c04fbd4c97b6e097a1aa7fdd0c04deaf0268

Regarding permissions something weird happens, the (s)rpm of this review have rpmlint errors, but I've rebuilt the same package in my workstation and these errors not are present, 

Download the rpm from here 
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/2590/8612590/python-txsocksx-1.13.0.3-4.fc22.noarch.rpm

rpmlint -vi python-txsocksx-1.13.0.3-4.fc22.noarch.rpm
python-txsocksx.noarch: I: checking
python-txsocksx.noarch: I: checking-url https://github.com/habnabit/txsocksx/ (timeout 10 seconds)
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

About others rpmlint warnings, Robert please escape the macro with a double percent %% sign

I'll accept this package.

APPROVED

Oh yes, indeed. Fixed and bumped release.
Thank you.

Spec URL: https://robyduck.fedorapeople.org/packages/SPECS/python-txsocksx.spec
SRPM URL: https://robyduck.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-txsocksx-1.13.0.3-5.fc21.src.rpm

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: python-txsocksx
Short Description: Twisted client endpoints for SOCKS{4,4a,5}
Upstream URL: https://github.com/habnabit/txsocksx/
Owners: robyduck
Branches: f20 f21

Git done (by process-git-requests).

python-txsocksx-1.13.0.3-5.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-txsocksx-1.13.0.3-5.fc20

python-txsocksx-1.13.0.3-5.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-txsocksx-1.13.0.3-5.fc21

python-txsocksx-1.13.0.3-5.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository.

python-txsocksx-1.13.0.3-5.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.

python-txsocksx-1.13.0.3-5.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.