Bug 1290345

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

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

Issues:
1) macro sum is not defined properly. Change
%global Terminal User Interface for docker engine
to
%global sum Terminal User Interface for docker engine

2) rpmlint also complained about 
python3-sen.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/sen/cli.py 644 /usr/bin/python3
==> Fix this by adding following to %prep
sed -i 1d sen/cli.py

===== 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 27 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/parag/1290345-sen/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages,
     /usr/lib/python3.5
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.5/site-
     packages, /usr/lib/python3.5
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
     Note: Macros in: python3-sen (summary)
[-]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 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 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]: 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]: 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.
[-]: %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: python3-sen-0.1.1-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
          sen-0.1.1-1.fc24.src.rpm
python3-sen.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro Summary(C) %{sum}
python3-sen.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US htop -> hop, top, stop
python3-sen.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US alot -> a lot, alto, slot
python3-sen.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tig -> chg, git, rig
python3-sen.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/sen/cli.py 644 /usr/bin/python3
python3-sen.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sen
sen.src: W: unexpanded-macro Summary(C) %{sum}
sen.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US htop -> hop, top, stop
sen.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US alot -> a lot, alto, slot
sen.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tig -> chg, git, rig
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 9 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
python3-sen.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro Summary(C) %{sum}
python3-sen.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l C alot -> a lot
python3-sen.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/sen/cli.py 644 /usr/bin/python3
python3-sen.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sen
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.



Requires
--------
python3-sen (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)
    python3-docker-py
    python3-humanize
    python3-urwid



Provides
--------
python3-sen:
    python3-sen



Source checksums
----------------
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/s/sen/sen-0.1.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 199318c40d68bf7a6cfa5416c4ac7aa0563af489cf3b1f9fc679dc5720cd6478
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 199318c40d68bf7a6cfa5416c4ac7aa0563af489cf3b1f9fc679dc5720cd6478


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1290345 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64

Fix the issues reported at start of this review text before this package import.

APPROVED.

Parag, thanks for the review! Already requested a git repository and will put there updated version of specfile -- those are really good points.

Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/sen

Builds are done:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=709118
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=709117


(shouldn't have requested epel7 since sen is python 3 only)


I have also changed spec a bit so all the code is in python3-sen while executable is in package sen (and sen requires python3-sen).


Parag, thanks again for the review. Jon, thanks for processing the SCM request.

sen-0.1.1-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-fc6c7770f6

sen-0.1.1-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-fc6c7770f6

sen-0.1.1-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.