Bug 1394969

As you can see in [1], ..."You should not include the directories %{python3_sitearch}/__pycache__ or %{python3_sitelib}/__pycache__ because they are already owned by the python3-libs package."

 The package owns

/usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/__pycache__

when it should not.

I believe it would be better to be a little more verbose with the wildcards to avoid these kinds of problem.

There is a %check section in the spec file, but during the build, tests are not being executed at all.

If you BuildRequires make and pythonX-pytest you could run the test suite with `make test`.

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Byte_compiling


Here is a fedora-review checklist:

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.
[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/lib/python3.5/site-
     packages/__pycache__(system-python-libs, python3-pyparsing)
[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]: 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 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[!]: 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]: 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.
[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.
[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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python2-pluginbase-0.5-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
          python3-pluginbase-0.5-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
          python-pluginbase-0.5-1.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-pluginbase (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)

python3-pluginbase (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)



Provides
--------
python2-pluginbase:
    python-pluginbase
    python2-pluginbase
    python2.7dist(pluginbase)
    python2dist(pluginbase)

python3-pluginbase:
    python3-pluginbase
    python3.5dist(pluginbase)
    python3dist(pluginbase)



Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/pluginbase/pluginbase-0.5.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : b4f830242a078a4f44c978a84f3365bba4d008fdd71a591c71447f4df35354dd
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b4f830242a078a4f44c978a84f3365bba4d008fdd71a591c71447f4df35354dd

Thanks for your review.

(In reply to Athos Ribeiro from comment #1)
> As you can see in [1], ..."You should not include the directories
> %{python3_sitearch}/__pycache__ or %{python3_sitelib}/__pycache__ because
> they are already owned by the python3-libs package."
> 
>  The package owns
> 
> /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/__pycache__
> 
> when it should not.
> 
> I believe it would be better to be a little more verbose with the wildcards
> to avoid these kinds of problem.

Thanks. I missed that. The ownership should be fixed now.

> There is a %check section in the spec file, but during the build, tests are
> not being executed at all.
> 
> If you BuildRequires make and pythonX-pytest you could run the test suite
> with `make test`.

Fixed.

Updated files:
Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-pluginbase.spec
SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-pluginbase-0.5-2.fc24.src.rpm

Issues were fixed.

Package looks good to me. Approved!

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

python-pluginbase-0.5-2.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-838efd8052

python-pluginbase-0.5-2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-f3acd7d879

python-pluginbase-0.5-2.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-2016-838efd8052

python-pluginbase-0.5-2.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-f3acd7d879

*** Bug 1115365 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

python-pluginbase-0.5-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

python-pluginbase-0.5-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.