Bug 1188178

hi Parag!

Please include the license text file in your spec file.

For example by adding to your files section:

  %license LICENSE

Cheers,
 Florian

Added license file

Spec URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SPECS/python-requests-toolbelt.spec
SRPM URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SRPMS/python-requests-toolbelt-0.3.1-2.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". 22 files have unknown license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[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 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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:
[-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3
     -requests-toolbelt
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
   ---> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8921004
[-]: %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-requests-toolbelt-0.3.1-2.fc22.noarch.rpm
          python3-requests-toolbelt-0.3.1-2.fc22.noarch.rpm
          python-requests-toolbelt-0.3.1-2.fc22.src.rpm
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Requires
--------
python3-requests-toolbelt (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)

python-requests-toolbelt (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)



Provides
--------
python3-requests-toolbelt:
    python3-requests-toolbelt

python-requests-toolbelt:
    python-requests-toolbelt



Source checksums
----------------
https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/r/requests-toolbelt/requests-toolbelt-0.3.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : f170eadbe01be2356d65862857a9b2eb8bb17b895cde158a7dd1c358a3a48d1a
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f170eadbe01be2356d65862857a9b2eb8bb17b895cde158a7dd1c358a3a48d1a


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1188178
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

===== Solution =====
      APPROVED

Thanks for this review.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: python-requests-toolbelt
Short Description: A utility belt for advanced users of python-requests
Upstream URL: https://toolbelt.readthedocs.org/
Owners: pnemade
Branches:  f20 f21 f22 el6 epel7
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

python-requests-toolbelt-0.3.1-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-requests-toolbelt-0.3.1-2.fc21

python-requests-toolbelt-0.3.1-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-requests-toolbelt-0.3.1-2.fc20

python-requests-toolbelt-0.3.1-2.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-requests-toolbelt-0.3.1-2.el7

Built in rawhide. Closing this review.

python-requests-toolbelt-0.3.1-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.

python-requests-toolbelt-0.3.1-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.

python-requests-toolbelt-0.3.1-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.