Bug 1381430

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

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


Suggestions:
1) Good to add BuildRequires: gcc as we want to specify more BR's in spec

2) For correct directory ownership, add expanded form of %files section

3) you can add if you want 
%check
%{__python3} -m unittest test_prctl.py

but this is failing currently.

4) you can also add docs files using sphinx-build-3

Please submit the updated package that fixed above issues.

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

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 10 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/parag/1381430-python3-prctl/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib64/python3.5/site-
     packages/__pycache__(system-python-libs, python3-regex, audit-libs-
     python3)
[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.
[-]: 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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: 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 python3
     -prctl-debuginfo
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[-]: 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 debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-prctl-1.6.1-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm
          python3-prctl-debuginfo-1.6.1-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm
          python3-prctl-1.6.1-1.fc26.src.rpm
python3-prctl.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ic -> ix, iv, i
python3-prctl.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) linux -> Linux
python3-prctl.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) syscall -> scallop
python3-prctl.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ic -> ix, iv, i
python3-prctl.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) linux -> Linux
python3-prctl.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) syscall -> scallop
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: python3-prctl-debuginfo-1.6.1-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
python3-prctl.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ic -> ix, iv, i
python3-prctl.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) linux -> Linux
python3-prctl.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) syscall -> scallop
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.



Requires
--------
python3-prctl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcap.so.2()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    libpython3.5m.so.1.0()(64bit)
    python(abi)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

python3-prctl-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
python3-prctl:
    python3-prctl
    python3-prctl(x86-64)
    python3.5dist(python-prctl)
    python3dist(python-prctl)

python3-prctl-debuginfo:
    python3-prctl-debuginfo
    python3-prctl-debuginfo(x86-64)



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
python3-prctl: /usr/lib64/python3.5/site-packages/_prctl.cpython-35m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/python-prctl/python-prctl-1.6.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : c421350bfe64cb8dd05d7a5b657317e2e45daad573e6e2f0af3e7ca459768d9e
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c421350bfe64cb8dd05d7a5b657317e2e45daad573e6e2f0af3e7ca459768d9e
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/seveas/python-prctl/master/COPYING :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 0aa1da7263be5e0e3f609430c7c6807266f394546aa60db84b04589a869be4e5
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0aa1da7263be5e0e3f609430c7c6807266f394546aa60db84b04589a869be4e5


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1381430 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64

any update?

any update?

Spec URL: https://kushal.fedorapeople.org/packages/python3-prctl.spec
SRPM URL: https://kushal.fedorapeople.org/packages/python3-prctl-1.6.1-2.fc25.src.rpm

Looks good. 

APPROVED.

Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python3-prctl

any updates here?

well package repository already exists in Fedora. Let's not wait here forever. Package can be built anytime.

Closing this which will clear this from my review tracker.