Bug 1395341 (python-zeroconf)

Summary:	Review Request: python-zeroconf - A Python Multicast DNS Service Discovery Library
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Fabian Affolter <mail>
Component:	Package Review	Assignee:	Athos Ribeiro <athoscribeiro>
Status:	CLOSED DUPLICATE	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide	CC:	athoscribeiro, package-review
Target Milestone:	---	Flags:	athoscribeiro: fedora-review?
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2016-11-16 21:09:20 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:

Description Fabian Affolter 2016-11-15 17:23:20 UTC

Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-zeroconf.spec
SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-zeroconf-0.17.6-1.fc24.src.rpm

Project URL: https://github.com/jstasiak/python-zeroconf

Description:
A pure Python Multicast DNS Service Discovery Library (Bonjour/Avahi
compatible).

Koji scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16465405

rpmlint output:
[fab@laptop016 SRPMS]$ rpmlint python*-zero*
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

[fab@laptop016 noarch]$ rpmlint python*-zero*
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Fedora Account System Username: fab

Comment 1 Athos Ribeiro 2016-11-16 21:03:21 UTC

The package does not install:

No package provides python2-enum34

Also, consider the following:

$ dnf --enablerepo=rawhide repoquery --whatprovides python3-enum34
python3-libs-0:3.5.2-6.fc26.i686
python3-libs-0:3.5.2-6.fc26.x86_64

python3-enum34 is already provided by python3-libs.

Upstream ships a test suite in test_zeroconf.py. Is there any reason the package does not have a %check section?

Comment 2 Athos Ribeiro 2016-11-16 21:09:20 UTC

Actually, there is an older review request for this package. I am marking it as a duplication and closing.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1392089 ***