Bug 1250884

python packaging guideline[1] says:

If you build for more than one python runtime you must use the %python_provide macro.

Can you please address this?

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Multiple_Python_Runtimes

Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/future/future.spec
SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/future/future-0.15.0-4.fc22.src.rpm

- Added patch to exclude failed tests (patch0)
- Added python-provides macro

Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/future/future.spec
SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/future/future-0.15.2-1.fc22.src.rpm

- Update to 0.15.2

Please, kindly consider this ticket; i need complete this review as soon as possible because other packages are stalled by it.

Package Review
==============

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


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

    [x]: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
    [x]: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption..
    [x]: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
    [x]: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines .
    [x]: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
    [x]: The spec file must be written in American English.
    [x]: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
    [x]: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
    [x]: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture.
    [x]: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line.
    [x]: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
    [x]: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
    [-]: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
    [x]: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
    [-]: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker.
    [x]: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)
    [x]: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example.
    [x]: Each package must consistently use macros.
    [x]: The package must contain code, or permissible content.
    [x]: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
    [x]: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present.
    [-]: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
    [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package.
   [-]: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
    [-]: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.
    [-]: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section.
    [+]: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
    [+]: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.


Python:
    [+]: If you build for more than one python runtime you must use the %python_provide macro.
    [+]: Python modules must be built from source. They cannot simply drop an egg from upstream into the proper directory. (See prebuilt binaries Guidelines for details)
    [+]: Python modules must not download any dependencies during the build process.
    [-]: When building a compat package, it must install using easy_install -m so it won't conflict with the main package.
    [-]: When building multiple versions (for a compat package) one of the packages must contain a default version that is usable via "import MODULE" with no prior setup.


===== 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.
    [+]: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
    [?]: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
    [?]: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
    [+]: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
    [-]: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
    [-]: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency.
    [-]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb.
    [-]: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself.
    [+]: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.
    [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info.

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

    [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
    [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
$ rpmlint future-0.15.2-1.fc22.src.rpm
future.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codebase -> co debase, co-debase, code base
future.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backports -> back ports, back-ports, crackpots
future.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US futurize -> futurist
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

Thanks.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: future
Short Description: Easy, clean, reliable Python 2/3 compatibility
Upstream URL: http://python-future.org/
Owners: sagitter
Branches: f22 f23 el6 epel7

Git done (by process-git-requests).

future-0.15.2-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-15908

future-0.15.2-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-15909

future-0.15.2-2.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-8090

future-0.15.2-2.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-8089

future-0.15.2-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.\nIf you want to test the update, you can install it with \n su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update future'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-15908

future-0.15.2-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.\nIf you want to test the update, you can install it with \n su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update future'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-15909

future-0.15.2-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.\nIf you want to test the update, you can install it with \n su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update future'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-8090

future-0.15.2-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.\nIf you want to test the update, you can install it with \n su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update future'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-8089

future-0.15.2-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

future-0.15.2-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

future-0.15.2-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

future-0.15.2-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

*** Bug 1393502 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***