Bug 1250887

I will take this review.  Can you review bug 1260246 for me?

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

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


Issues:
=======
- Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros

- There is really no point to the 12 in "0%{?fedora} > 12"; it could just be
  "0%{?fedora}" now.

- Version 1.2.1 is now in the git repo.

- What is the point of the touch invocations in %install?  If you want to
  preserve timestamps, those should instead read like this:

  touch -r bin/preprocess $i

- Some %description lines are too long; see the rpmlint output below.  I don't
  know what rpmlint considers too long, but I keep my %description lines to no
  more than 72 characters in length, because I have found that lines longer
  than that don't display well in some of the graphical package tools.

- Spelling errors in %description (mostly pointed out by rpmlint):
  o "maybe" -> "may be"
  o "filetype" -> "file type"
  o "targetted" -> "targeted"

- Note the non-executable script complaint by rpmlint.  Either the library
  file should be executable (in which case, the shebang expression should
  be #!/usr/bin/python2 for %{python2_sitelib}/preprocess.py and
  #!/usr/bin/python3 for %{python3_sitelib}/preprocess.py), or the file
  should not be executable, in which case the shebang should be removed.


===== 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.
[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.
[!]: 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 61440 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]: 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.
[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 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.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[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.
[x]: %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
     $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: preprocess-1.2-1.20150629git30078c.fc24.noarch.rpm
          python3-preprocess-1.2-1.20150629git30078c.fc24.noarch.rpm
          preprocess-1.2-1.20150629git30078c.fc24.src.rpm
preprocess.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi -> mulch, mufti
preprocess.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US templating -> contemplating, template, tempting
preprocess.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US py -> pt, p, y
preprocess.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filetype -> file type, file-type, Teletype
preprocess.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US targetted -> targeted, target ted, target-ted
preprocess.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C There are millions of templating systems out there (most of them developed for the web).
preprocess.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/preprocess.py 644 /usr/bin/env
preprocess.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary preprocess
preprocess.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary python2.7-preprocess
preprocess.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary preprocess-2.7
preprocess.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary preprocess-2
python3-preprocess.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi -> mulch, mufti
python3-preprocess.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) preprocessor -> processor, predecessor, process's
python3-preprocess.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US templating -> contemplating, template, tempting
python3-preprocess.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US py -> pt, p, y
python3-preprocess.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filetype -> file type, file-type, Teletype
python3-preprocess.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preprocessor -> processor, predecessor, process's
python3-preprocess.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US targetted -> targeted, target ted, target-ted
python3-preprocess.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C There are millions of templating systems out there (most of them developed for the web).
python3-preprocess.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C Python3 preprocess.py is targetted at build systems that deal with many types of files.
python3-preprocess.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/preprocess.py 644 /usr/bin/env
python3-preprocess.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary preprocess-3.4
python3-preprocess.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary python3.4-preprocess
python3-preprocess.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary preprocess-3
preprocess.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi -> mulch, mufti
preprocess.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US templating -> contemplating, template, tempting
preprocess.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US py -> pt, p, y
preprocess.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filetype -> file type, file-type, Teletype
preprocess.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US targetted -> targeted, target ted, target-ted
preprocess.src: E: description-line-too-long C There are millions of templating systems out there (most of them developed for the web).
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 24 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
preprocess.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C There are millions of templating systems out there (most of them developed for the web).
preprocess.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/preprocess.py 644 /usr/bin/env
preprocess.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary preprocess
preprocess.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary preprocess-2
preprocess.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary python2.7-preprocess
preprocess.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary preprocess-2.7
python3-preprocess.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C There are millions of templating systems out there (most of them developed for the web).
python3-preprocess.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C Python3 preprocess.py is targetted at build systems that deal with many types of files.
python3-preprocess.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/preprocess.py 644 /usr/bin/env
python3-preprocess.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary preprocess-3.4
python3-preprocess.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary preprocess-3
python3-preprocess.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary python3.4-preprocess
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 7 warnings.



Requires
--------
preprocess (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python2
    python(abi)

python3-preprocess (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)



Provides
--------
preprocess:
    preprocess

python3-preprocess:
    python3-preprocess



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/hplgit/preprocess/archive/30078c16503f1721083ede37f71233bc0de363aa.zip#/preprocess-30078c16503f1721083ede37f71233bc0de363aa.zip :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 2a9e9dbc162a966c3142a51fcab7ee595349e4b1e2c1557351cc8f1a77415669
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2a9e9dbc162a966c3142a51fcab7ee595349e4b1e2c1557351cc8f1a77415669


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1250887 -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

>- What is the point of the touch invocations in %install?  If you want to
>  preserve timestamps, those should instead read like this:
>
>  touch -r bin/preprocess $i

Indeed; i have used the file already installed on buildroot.

Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/preprocess/preprocess.spec
SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/preprocess/preprocess-1.2.1-1.20150914gitb23422.fc22.src.rpm

(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #3)
> Indeed; i have used the file already installed on buildroot.

Okay, that's good, but two of the other issues have not been addressed, namely:

- Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros

- Note the non-executable script complaint by rpmlint.  Either the library
  file should be executable (in which case, the shebang expression should
  be #!/usr/bin/python2 for %{python2_sitelib}/preprocess.py and
  #!/usr/bin/python3 for %{python3_sitelib}/preprocess.py), or the file
  should not be executable, in which case the shebang should be removed.

Sorry; now it should be fine.

Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/preprocess/preprocess.spec
SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/preprocess/preprocess-1.2.1-2.20150914gitb23422.fc22.src.rpm

Okay, everything looks good now.  APPROVED.

Thanks for the review.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: preprocess
Short Description: A portable multi-language file Python2 preprocessor
Upstream URL: https://github.com/hplgit/preprocess
Owners: sagitter
Branches: f22 f23 el6 epel7

Git done (by process-git-requests).

preprocess-1.2.1-3.20150914gitb23422.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-01bbb8b872

preprocess-1.2.1-3.20150914gitb23422.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update preprocess'
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-01bbb8b872

preprocess-1.2.1-3.20150914gitb23422.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update preprocess'
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-198aadf543

preprocess-1.2.1-3.20150914gitb23422.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

preprocess-1.2.1-3.20150914gitb23422.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.