Bug 1379091

hi
Source1:        MIT_license.txt is useless ...?
git source archive should be contains license file
https://github.com/spyder-ide/qtpy/archive/v1.1.2/qtpy-1.1.2.tar.gz

hmm ... pypi tarball does not have the license. I will fix these and upload new spec and srpm tomorrow.

sorry about the delay.

Also fixed most issues .. hopefully.

Spec URL: https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-QtPy/python-QtPy.spec
SRPM URL: https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-QtPy/python-QtPy-1.1.2-2.fc24.src.rpm

Please, use https://github.com/spyder-ide/qtpy/archive/v1.1.2/qtpy-1.1.2.tar.gz
Otherwise you should use the approach shown here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL#Git_Hosting_Services

I am using this format ...

Source0:  https://github.com/OWNER/%{name}/archive/%{commit0}.tar.gz basically ...

also, this is the same tarball - 

$ sha256sum ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/v1.1.2.tar.gz qtpy-1.1.2.tar.gz 
7cffde4f4baef3a34076aeea93e18abc861f89fc1f210b6bc39c502526d5d9f9  /home/mukundan/rpmbuild/SOURCES/v1.1.2.tar.gz
7cffde4f4baef3a34076aeea93e18abc861f89fc1f210b6bc39c502526d5d9f9  qtpy-1.1.2.tar.gz

Well, changed Source URL anyway ... :)

Spec URL: https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-QtPy/python-QtPy.spec
SRPM URL: https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-QtPy/python-QtPy-1.1.2-3.fc24.src.rpm

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

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



===== 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 24 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1379091-python-
     QtPy/licensecheck.txt
  License:	MIT and BSD

License: BSD.
./qtpy/_patch/qcombobox.py

[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
./qtpy/_patch/qcombobox.py PyQt4 ... ?
[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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     python2-QtPy , python3-QtPy
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: 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.
[?]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: 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:
[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: python2-QtPy-1.1.2-3.fc26.noarch.rpm
          python3-QtPy-1.1.2-3.fc26.noarch.rpm
          python-QtPy-1.1.2-3.fc26.src.rpm
python2-QtPy.noarch: W: no-documentation
python3-QtPy.noarch: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
python3-QtPy.noarch: W: no-documentation
python2-QtPy.noarch: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.



Requires
--------
python3-QtPy (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)

python2-QtPy (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)



Provides
--------
python3-QtPy:
    python3-QtPy
    python3.5dist(qtpy)
    python3dist(qtpy)

python2-QtPy:
    python-QtPy
    python2-QtPy
    python2.7dist(qtpy)
    python2dist(qtpy)



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/spyder-ide/qtpy/archive/v1.1.2/qtpy-1.1.2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 7cffde4f4baef3a34076aeea93e18abc861f89fc1f210b6bc39c502526d5d9f9
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7cffde4f4baef3a34076aeea93e18abc861f89fc1f210b6bc39c502526d5d9f9


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1379091 --plugins Python -m fedora-rawhide-i386
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386
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

Maybe you could add %doc CHANGELOG.md README.md for each pythonX sub packages

have time for this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380140 ?
thanks in advance

(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #9)
> have time for this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380140 ?
> thanks in advance

Yes of couse. Taken,

(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #8)
> Maybe you could add %doc CHANGELOG.md README.md for each pythonX sub packages

done.


Spec URL: https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-QtPy/python-QtPy.spec
SRPM URL: https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-QtPy/python-QtPy-1.1.2-4.fc24.src.rpm

Remain these problems:
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 24 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1379091-python-
     QtPy/licensecheck.txt
  License:	MIT and BSD

License: BSD.
./qtpy/_patch/qcombobox.py

[?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
./qtpy/_patch/qcombobox.py PyQt4 ... ?

(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #12)
> Remain these problems:
> [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
>      Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
>      found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 24 files have unknown
>      license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1379091-python-
>      QtPy/licensecheck.txt
>   License:	MIT and BSD
> 
> License: BSD.
> ./qtpy/_patch/qcombobox.py

Fixed.


> 
> [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
> ./qtpy/_patch/qcombobox.py PyQt4 ... ?


This is not a bundled library. This is code that spyder folks adapted from qt-helpers.

Please see the relevant sources here - 

qtpy; qcombobox.py 

https://github.com/spyder-ide/qtpy/blob/master/qtpy/_patch/qcombobox.py


qt-helpers

https://github.com/glue-viz/qt-helpers/blob/master/qt_helpers.py


So, this should not be an issue.


+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=


Spec URL: https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-QtPy/python-QtPy.spec
SRPM URL: https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-QtPy/python-QtPy-1.1.2-5.fc24.src.rpm

Thanks for the review.

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

built on rawhide.