Bug 1349575 (python-multidict)

Hi Igor,

Since this is blocking my other pkgs, I'll be doing full review in next ~24h (busy atm).

Couple questions though:

- Is there reason for 'BuildRequires:  gcc', gcc should be included in buildroot (@buildsys-build) unless we stripped the gcc compilers too (in addition to perl :)

- The module seem to support both py2 and py3, however only python 3 is built, any comments on this ?

(In reply to Athmane Madjoudj from comment #1)
> Hi Igor,
> 
> Since this is blocking my other pkgs, I'll be doing full review in next ~24h
> (busy atm).
> 
> Couple questions though:
> 
> - Is there reason for 'BuildRequires:  gcc', gcc should be included in
> buildroot (@buildsys-build) unless we stripped the gcc compilers too (in
> addition to perl :)
Every build requires should be specified. It has been introduced something half year ago.
> 
> - The module seem to support both py2 and py3, however only python 3 is
> built, any comments on this ?
IIRC it's python3 only.

New SRPM: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-multidict-1.1.0-1.fc25.src.rpm

about py2 thing: https://github.com/aio-libs/multidict/issues/4

Please make review.

(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #3)
> 
> about py2 thing: https://github.com/aio-libs/multidict/issues/4

Not a blocker, I only raised it in case someone will need py2 sub pkg in the future.

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

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

Results:
=======

Package approved

Issues:
=======


===== 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]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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 10240 bytes in 2 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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]: 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]: 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

===== 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.
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     python3-multidict , python-multidict-debuginfo
[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.
[?]: 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]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

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

Generic:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
     attached diff).
     See: (this test has no URL)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-multidict-1.1.0-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm
          python-multidict-debuginfo-1.1.0-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm
          python-multidict-1.1.0-1.fc25.src.rpm
0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: python-multidict-debuginfo-1.1.0-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.



Requires
--------
python3-multidict (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    libpython3.5m.so.1.0()(64bit)
    python(abi)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

python-multidict-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
python3-multidict:
    python3-multidict
    python3-multidict(x86-64)

python-multidict-debuginfo:
    python-multidict-debuginfo
    python-multidict-debuginfo(x86-64)


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/aio-libs/multidict/archive/v1.1.0/multidict-1.1.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 4532cf1c7bd61a54bbc5bcf1935391b2028ff6bba709de99b2f4502b645e6f46
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4532cf1c7bd61a54bbc5bcf1935391b2028ff6bba709de99b2f4502b645e6f46

Thanks for review!

Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-multidict

python-multidict-1.1.0-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-455512c317

python-multidict-1.1.0-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 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-2016-455512c317

python-multidict-1.1.0-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.