Bug 1451054

Hello,

As I already said in the dependent review #1451066, I'm new comer for packaging, and I'll do an informal review of your package review request. Please feel free to make any comment about this.

Summary of review potential problems.

MUST 
   - License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. 
     78 files have unknown license.
     MIT licence is OK, so I think that 78 files are OK (not necessary to add
     licence field in each one)?

SHOULD
   - %check is present and all tests pass. I don't know if test directory in
     upstream github repository is made to proceed some unit-tests while 
     installing and setting-up the package or if this is only an example of
     use-cases. I set this item in review as "Not applicable"

rpmlint 
    rpmlint spelling-error aren't blocking on "multi-" word, that's why I 
    ticked "Pass" to "Spec file is legible and written in American English".


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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 78 files have
     unknown license. D
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.6/site-
     packages, /usr/lib/python3.6
[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.
[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 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     python2-terminaltables , python3-terminaltables
[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.
[-]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python2-terminaltables-3.1.0-2.fc27.noarch.rpm
          python3-terminaltables-3.1.0-2.fc27.noarch.rpm
          python-terminaltables-3.1.0-2.fc27.src.rpm
python2-terminaltables.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti
python3-terminaltables.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti
python-terminaltables.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
python2-terminaltables.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti
python3-terminaltables.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.



Requires
--------
python2-terminaltables (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)

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



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

python3-terminaltables:
    python3-terminaltables
    python3.6dist(terminaltables)
    python3dist(terminaltables)



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/Robpol86/terminaltables/archive/v3.1.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : c02ecf68e22374ca8226d2af314875489e59d523ebec6a363a554e4716a84723
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c02ecf68e22374ca8226d2af314875489e59d523ebec6a363a554e4716a84723


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1451054 -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


Hope this is correct.

Cordially,


-- 
NVieville

- You may append a trailing slash to %{python3_sitelib}/%{pypi_name} and %{python3_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}-py?.?.egg-info (and for Python 2)
- Are the tests runnable? If so, please include them.
- I believe RPM lints errors are false positive due to this change: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/python3_c.utf-8_locale

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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 91 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/1451054
     -python-terminaltables/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).
[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.
[X]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[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]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     python2-terminaltables , python3-terminaltables
[?]: 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.
[?]: 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:
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: Mock build failed
     See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint
Install failed in mock but succeded on my f26 system.

[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Installation errors
-------------------
INFO: mock.py version 1.4.1 starting (python version = 3.6.1)...
Start: init plugins
INFO: selinux disabled
Finish: init plugins
Start: run
Start: chroot init
INFO: calling preinit hooks
INFO: enabled root cache
INFO: enabled dnf cache
Start: cleaning dnf metadata
Finish: cleaning dnf metadata
INFO: enabled HW Info plugin
Mock Version: 1.4.1
INFO: Mock Version: 1.4.1
ERROR: Command failed:
 # /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn -q -M f4697209171a46ff8e92fcb6da2ebe65 -D /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root -a --setenv=TERM=vt100 --setenv=SHELL=/bin/bash --setenv=HOME=/builddir --setenv=HOSTNAME=mock --setenv=PATH=/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin --setenv=PROMPT_COMMAND=printf "\033]0;<mock-chroot>\007" --setenv=PS1=<mock-chroot> \s-\v\$  --setenv=LANG=en_US.utf8 /usr/sbin/usermod -u 1000 mockbuild



Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python2-terminaltables-3.1.0-2.fc27.noarch.rpm
          python3-terminaltables-3.1.0-2.fc27.noarch.rpm
          python-terminaltables-3.1.0-2.fc27.src.rpm
python2-terminaltables.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti
python3-terminaltables.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti
python-terminaltables.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti
python-terminaltables.src: E: specfile-error Python runtime initialized with LC_CTYPE=C (a locale with default ASCII encoding), which may cause Unicode compatibility problems. Using C.UTF-8, C.utf8, or UTF-8 (if available) as alternative Unicode-compatible locales is recommended.
python-terminaltables.src: E: specfile-error Python runtime initialized with LC_CTYPE=C (a locale with default ASCII encoding), which may cause Unicode compatibility problems. Using C.UTF-8, C.utf8, or UTF-8 (if available) as alternative Unicode-compatible locales is recommended.
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings.




Requires
--------
python2-terminaltables (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)

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



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

python3-terminaltables:
    python3-terminaltables
    python3.6dist(terminaltables)
    python3dist(terminaltables)



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/Robpol86/terminaltables/archive/v3.1.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : c02ecf68e22374ca8226d2af314875489e59d523ebec6a363a554e4716a84723
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c02ecf68e22374ca8226d2af314875489e59d523ebec6a363a554e4716a84723


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1451054
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

Thanks for review!

Changes done:
- Add trailing /
- Testing enabled

spec: https://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/python-terminaltables/python-terminaltables.spec
srpm: https://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/python-terminaltables/python-terminaltables-3.1.0-3.fc25.src.rpm
koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20073067

Looks good approved.

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

python-terminaltables-3.1.0-3.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-6b871efdae

Thank Julien! 

Could you have a look on related request too:
  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1451066

python-terminaltables-3.1.0-3.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-2017-6b871efdae

python-terminaltables-3.1.0-3.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 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-2017-5b989561cb

python-terminaltables-3.1.0-3.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

python-terminaltables-3.1.0-3.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.