Bug 1387518

Taking this review.

Are you sure that python-setuptools and python-nose need to be runtime requirements? I don't see anything that indicates they should be.

The code does import from pkg_resources which is provided by setuptools. The "setuptools" and "nose" are listed in the "install_requires" section in setup.py, so it seems logical to propagate this dependency in the RPM. I agree that nose does not seem necessary at runtime (by grepping the code) but then that's an upstream bug, I'm not sure I should patch the setup.py downstream in Fedora for that issue.

(BTW I reported the bug here: https://bugs.launchpad.net/lazr.config/+bug/1649726)

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

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



===== 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". 28 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/makerpm/1387518-python-lazr-
     config/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
     packages/lazr(python2-lazr-delegates), /usr/lib/python3.5/site-
     packages/lazr(python3-lazr-delegates)
[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.
[x]: 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: 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:
[x]: 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-config , python3-lazr-config
[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.
[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:
[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-lazr-config-2.1-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
          python3-lazr-config-2.1-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
          python-lazr-config-2.1-1.fc26.src.rpm
python2-lazr-config.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) schemas -> schema, sachems, schemes
python2-lazr-config.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ini -> uni, in, ii
python3-lazr-config.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) schemas -> schema, sachems, schemes
python3-lazr-config.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ini -> uni, in, ii
python-lazr-config.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) schemas -> schema, sachems, schemes
python-lazr-config.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ini -> uni, in, ii
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
python2-lazr-config.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) schemas -> schema, sachems, schemes
python2-lazr-config.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ini -> uni, in, ii
python3-lazr-config.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) schemas -> schema, sachems, schemes
python3-lazr-config.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ini -> uni, in, ii
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.



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

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



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

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



Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/l/lazr.config/lazr.config-2.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 5f380f5defd1f2e0db7483f5b55072e458dcba1d38ea8b2c7867de8127970689
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5f380f5defd1f2e0db7483f5b55072e458dcba1d38ea8b2c7867de8127970689


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1387518 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
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

The warnings thrown by rpmlint are easily ignorable.

Everything else looks good.

PACKAGE APPROVED.

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

python-lazr-config-2.1-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-1a7b9b78c9

python-lazr-config-2.1-1.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-2016-1a7b9b78c9

python-lazr-config-2.1-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.