Bug 1233963
| Summary: | Review Request: python-cachetools - Extensible memoizing collections and decorators | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | John Eckersberg <jeckersb> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Julien Enselme <jujens> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | jpena, jujens, package-review, panemade |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | jujens:
fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+ |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | python-cachetools-1.0.3-1.el7 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2015-07-31 07:56:47 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 1243533 | ||
|
Description
John Eckersberg
2015-06-19 20:41:32 UTC
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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 is marked as %doc instead of %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ===== 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". 32 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/1233963-python- cachetools/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 8 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 [!]: 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 work. [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 %{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-cachetools [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. [X]: %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]: 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-cachetools-1.0.2-1.fc23.noarch.rpm python3-cachetools-1.0.2-1.fc23.noarch.rpm python-cachetools-1.0.2-1.fc23.src.rpm python-cachetools.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) memoizing -> memorizing, demonizing, monetizing python-cachetools.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US memoizing -> memorizing, demonizing, monetizing python-cachetools.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lru -> URL python3-cachetools.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) memoizing -> memorizing, demonizing, monetizing python3-cachetools.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US memoizing -> memorizing, demonizing, monetizing python3-cachetools.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lru -> URL python-cachetools.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) memoizing -> memorizing, demonizing, monetizing python-cachetools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US memoizing -> memorizing, demonizing, monetizing python-cachetools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lru -> URL 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-cachetools.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) memoizing -> memorizing, demonizing, monetizing python3-cachetools.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US memoizing -> memorizing, demonizing, monetizing python3-cachetools.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lru -> URL python-cachetools.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) memoizing -> memorizing, demonizing, monetizing python-cachetools.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US memoizing -> memorizing, demonizing, monetizing python-cachetools.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lru -> URL 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Requires -------- python3-cachetools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-cachetools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-cachetools: python3-cachetools python-cachetools: python-cachetools Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/c/cachetools/cachetools-1.0.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 51ec19285579798b50e08b7fed7ceac1c1fa380ea0e7561ef073e2d1c778d8cd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 51ec19285579798b50e08b7fed7ceac1c1fa380ea0e7561ef073e2d1c778d8cd Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1233963 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 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, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 - Remove upstream's egg-info in %setup - Don't rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in the beginning of install - Be more specific in the included files - Use %license for license: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text - The definition of __python2, python2_sitearch and python2_sitearch is not needed for fedora Any progress on addressing the problems I pointed out? (In reply to Julien Enselme from comment #2) > Any progress on addressing the problems I pointed out? Sorry, I lost track of this in my backlog. I'll get an updated package posted later today. Updated: Spec URL: https://jeckersb.fedorapeople.org/python-cachetools/python-cachetools.spec SRPM URL: https://jeckersb.fedorapeople.org/python-cachetools/python-cachetools-1.0.2-2.fc24.src.rpm %changelog * Mon Jul 20 2015 John Eckersberg <eck> - 1.0.2-2 - Remove egg-info in %%setup - Install license via %%license instead of %%doc - Don't rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT at the beginning of %%install - Removed defines for __python2, python2_sitelib, and python2_sitearch - Be more explicit in %%files Looks good. Approved! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-cachetools Short Description: Extensible memoizing collections and decorators Upstream URL: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/cachetools Owners: jeckersb Branches: f22 f23 epel7 InitialCC: Git done (by process-git-requests). python-cachetools-1.0.3-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-cachetools-1.0.3-1.fc22 python-cachetools-1.0.3-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-cachetools-1.0.3-1.el7 python-cachetools-1.0.3-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. python-cachetools-1.0.3-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. python-cachetools-1.0.3-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. *** Bug 1243048 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** |