Bug 1387291

I noticed that this fails to build on EPEL 7 due to a missing python2-zope-interfaces package. However, I don't believe it is necessary to build on EPEL 7 for me to pass the review (nothing in MUST says that, and this does build on Rawhide) so I am passing. You can fix that on your own at your leisure ☺


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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "*No copyright* LGPL (v3)", "LGPL (v3)", "Unknown or
     generated". 17 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/rbarlow/reviews/1387291-python-lazr-
     delegates/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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).
     bowlofeggs: To an awesome degree!
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 4 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]: 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2
     -lazr-delegates , python3-lazr-delegates
     bowlofeggs: This is not necessary.
[?]: 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.
     bowlofeggs: Know anyone who could translate this to French for us? ☺
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python2-lazr-delegates-2.0.3-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
          python3-lazr-delegates-2.0.3-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
          python-lazr-delegates-2.0.3-1.fc26.src.rpm
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.



Requires
--------
python2-lazr-delegates (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python2-nose
    python2-setuptools
    python2-zope-interface

python3-lazr-delegates (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3-nose
    python3-setuptools
    python3-zope-interface



Provides
--------
python2-lazr-delegates:
    python-lazr-delegates
    python2-lazr-delegates
    python2.7dist(lazr.delegates)
    python2dist(lazr.delegates)

python3-lazr-delegates:
    python3-lazr-delegates
    python3.5dist(lazr.delegates)
    python3dist(lazr.delegates)



Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/l/lazr.delegates/lazr.delegates-2.0.3.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 51c80d5ac2c1f8f4a8c75fa271646529c8a6393a0b088dab50fb62138d092ee9
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 51c80d5ac2c1f8f4a8c75fa271646529c8a6393a0b088dab50fb62138d092ee9


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1387291
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

Passing Rawhide build:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16188418

Failing EPEL 7 and F23 builds:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16188424
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16188421

Right, I'll fix this, I've already done so for another package. Thanks for the review! :-)

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

python-lazr-delegates-2.0.3-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-7afbe2ffc9

python-lazr-delegates-2.0.3-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-2016-7afbe2ffc9

python-lazr-delegates-2.0.3-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.