Bug 1266258

This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
  a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
  listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
  case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
  in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
  ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text



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

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


Issues:
=======
- Dist tag is present.
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
- 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 UNLICENSE is marked as %doc instead of %license
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text


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

Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 8 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/jdulaney/rpmbuild/review-python-URLObject/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[ ]: 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
[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 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:
[ ]: 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]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

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

Generic:
[ ]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
     Note: %clean present but not required
[ ]: 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).
[ ]: 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
     architectures.
[ ]: %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]: 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-URLObject-2.4.0-1.noarch.rpm
          python-URLObject-2.4.0-1.src.rpm
python-URLObject.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A utility class for manipulating URLs.
python-URLObject.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A utility class for manipulating URLs.
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
python-URLObject.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A utility class for manipulating URLs.
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.



Requires
--------
python-URLObject (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)



Provides
--------
python-URLObject:
    python-URLObject



Source checksums
----------------
https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/U/URLObject/URLObject-2.4.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : f51272b12846db98af530b0a64f6593d2b1e8405f0aa580285b37ce8009b8d9c
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f51272b12846db98af530b0a64f6593d2b1e8405f0aa580285b37ce8009b8d9c


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n python-URLObject
Buildroot used: fedora-23-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

I will not repeat the fedora-review noise here. Looks nice and clean, just a few small things:

> python-URLObject.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A utility class for manipulating URLs.
> python-URLObject.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A utility class for manipulating URLs.

rpmlint is right here. Summary shouldn't end with a full stop.


> BuildRequires:  python-devel

This should be python2-devel as per latest guidelines.

> %doc UNLICENSE

Please use %license for license files instead.

Also, might be a good idea to use the same name as the debian package uses and go for all lower case letters for the package name: https://packages.debian.org/source/sid/python-urlobject
What do you think?

Can you build a Python 3 subpackage as well? Debian seems to have managed it, so it must be possible.

jdulaney's scratch build of python-urlobject-2.4.0-2.src.rpm for f24 failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11303776

jdulaney's scratch build of python-urlobject-2.4.0-2.src.rpm for f24 failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11304040

jdulaney's scratch build of python-urlobject-2.4.0-2.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11304209

Spec URL: http://rpms.jdulaney.com/review/python-URLObject.spec
SRPM URL: http://rpms.jdulaney.com/review/python-urlobject-2.4.0-2.fc24.src.rpm

Have fixed the above noted issues, including python3 subpackage.  Also removed bundled six via patch.  Have tested removed bundled six, using Fedora's packaged six, and it appears to be working just fine.

> Requires:  python-six
> Provides:  python2-urlobject

These two lines currently end up as part of python3-urlobject %description. If you move them below the main package's BuildRequires and above '%package -n python3-urlobject' they should start working as expected.

> %{__python2} setup.py install --skip-build --root=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> %{__python3} setup.py install --skip-build --prefix=%{_prefix} --root $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

Why is --prefix=%{_prefix} only in one of the lines above? Shouldn't it be in both (or neither)? Also, we have new %py2_install and %py3_install macros that wrap this. Might be a good idea to use them instead, as is done in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_common_spec_file

jdulaney's scratch build of python-urlobject-2.4.0-3.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11323225

Spec URL:  http://rpms.jdulaney.com/review/python-urlobject.spec
SRPM URL:  http://rpms.jdulaney.com/review/python-urlobject-2.4.0-3.fc24.src.rpm


Okay, cleaned it up a bit.

Great, looks good to me now!

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name:  python-urlobject
Short Description: A utility class for manipulating URLs
Upstream URL: http://github.com/zacharyvoase/urlobject
Owners: jdulaney
Branches: f22 f23
InitialCC:

This SCM request method has been deprecated. Please see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageDB_admin_requests.

python-urlobject-2.4.0-3.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-fbab609b5d

python-urlobject-2.4.0-3.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 python-urlobject'
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-fbab609b5d

python-urlobject-2.4.0-6.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-64a82dc1b8

This is in rawhide in epel7, so gonna close this now.

python-urlobject-2.4.0-6.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 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 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update python-urlobject'
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-64a82dc1b8

python-urlobject-2.4.0-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

python-urlobject-2.4.0-6.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.