Bug 1202303

Summary: Review Request: python-colour-runner - Colour formatting for unittest test output
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Robert Kuska <rkuska>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Matej Stuchlik <mstuchli>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: jberan, mstuchli, package-review
Target Milestone: ---Flags: mstuchli: fedora-review+
puiterwijk: fedora-cvs+
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: python-colour-runner-0.0.4-1.fc21 Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-04-21 19:18:19 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 Robert Kuska 2015-03-16 10:56:29 UTC
Spec URL: https://rkuska.fedorapeople.org/python-colour-runner.spec
SRPM URL: https://rkuska.fedorapeople.org/python-colour-runner-0.0.4-1.fc22.src.rpm
Description: Colour formatting for unittest test output.
Fedora Account System Username: rkuska

Comment 1 Matej Stuchlik 2015-03-16 11:22:50 UTC
I'll take this.

Comment 2 Matej Stuchlik 2015-03-24 11:50:40 UTC
Package Review

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

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

[ ]: 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". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/mstuchli/fedora_review/1202303-python-colour-
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.3
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.3,
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: 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
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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 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
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

[ ]: 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
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

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

[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
     from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: 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
[ ]: %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]: 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
[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 =====

[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: python-colour-runner-0.0.4-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
python-colour-runner.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unittest -> unit test, unit-test, unities
python-colour-runner.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unittest -> unit test, unit-test, unities
python-colour-runner.noarch: W: no-documentation
python3-colour-runner.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unittest -> unit test, unit-test, unities
python3-colour-runner.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unittest -> unit test, unit-test, unities
python3-colour-runner.noarch: W: no-documentation
python-colour-runner.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unittest -> unit test, unit-test, unities
python-colour-runner.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unittest -> unit test, unit-test, unities
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
Cannot parse rpmlint output:

python3-colour-runner (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

python-colour-runner (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Source checksums
https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/c/colour-runner/colour-runner-0.0.4.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 10674157ee0a7a1d1db541f9815effee849259252c54ba0933fe3292a3db48be
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 10674157ee0a7a1d1db541f9815effee849259252c54ba0933fe3292a3db48be

Looks good to me, approved!

Comment 3 Robert Kuska 2015-04-01 09:02:10 UTC
New Package SCM Request
Package Name: python-colour-runner
Short Description: Colour formatting for unittest test output
Upstream URL: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/colour-runner
Owners: rkuska
Branches: f21 f22

Comment 4 Patrick Uiterwijk 2015-04-02 13:58:45 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2015-04-09 11:40:11 UTC
python-colour-runner-0.0.4-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2015-04-09 11:40:17 UTC
python-colour-runner-0.0.4-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22.

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2015-04-09 16:46:05 UTC
python-colour-runner-0.0.4-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository.

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2015-04-21 19:18:19 UTC
python-colour-runner-0.0.4-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2015-06-01 17:01:35 UTC
python-colour-runner-0.0.4-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.