Bug 1481876

Doesn't build on rawhide:
running install_scripts
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "setup.py", line 48, in <module>
    setup(**kwargs)
  File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/distutils/core.py", line 151, in setup
    dist.run_commands()
  File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/distutils/dist.py", line 953, in run_commands
    self.run_command(cmd)
  File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/distutils/dist.py", line 972, in run_command
    cmd_obj.run()
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/setuptools/command/install.py", line 61, in run
    return orig.install.run(self)
  File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/distutils/command/install.py", line 575, in run
    self.run_command(cmd_name)
  File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/distutils/cmd.py", line 326, in run_command
    self.distribution.run_command(command)
  File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/distutils/dist.py", line 972, in run_command
    cmd_obj.run()
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/setuptools/command/install_scripts.py", line 33, in run
    bs_cmd = (self.get_finalized_command('build_scripts', create=False) or
  File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/distutils/cmd.py", line 312, in get_finalized_command
    cmd_obj.ensure_finalized()
AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'ensure_finalized'
RPM build errors:
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.LN9Lc5 (%install)
    Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.LN9Lc5 (%install)
Child return code was: 1
EXCEPTION: [Error()]

Odd. It built fine a few days ago... 

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21247929

will take a look.

Yeah it builds fine in koji here: 

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21332425

Were you building locally or in mock? 
I don't think I am missing any buildrequires or it wouldnt work in koji either...

(In reply to Kevin Fenzi from comment #3)
> Yeah it builds fine in koji here: 
> 
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21332425
> 
> Were you building locally or in mock? 
> I don't think I am missing any buildrequires or it wouldnt work in koji
> either...

Building in mock via fedora-review.  It does seem to build fine now, must have been some transient bad state in rawhide or something.  Now, though, when fedora-review tries to install the package, it puts dnf into some sort of 100% CPU loop.  Don't know exactly what's going on there.  :(

OK, I think the dnf 100% CPU loop was normal, or at least if I wait long enough, fedora-review completes.  :)  Sorry about that.

First comment: I believe that six, execnet, contextlib2, and mock need to be Requires also.  setup.py also references path.py but quickly grepping the code I don't see that being imported anyway.

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

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

Summary of Issues:
- Please check/fix the Requires
- Please query upstream about the lack of LICENSE file
- Is there a reason you didn't package the latest version (1.2.11)?
- Your spec file doesn't match what's in the srpm

===== 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.
[-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated". 24 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/talbert/fedora-review/1481876-python-
     pytest-shutil/licensecheck.txt
[-]: 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.
[!]: 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 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]: 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
     -pytest-shutil , python3-pytest-shutil
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: 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:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
     attached diff).
     See: (this test has no URL)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python2-pytest-shutil-1.2.6-1.fc27.noarch.rpm
          python3-pytest-shutil-1.2.6-1.fc27.noarch.rpm
          python-pytest-shutil-1.2.6-1.fc27.src.rpm
python2-pytest-shutil.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) goodie -> foodie, goodies, goo die
python2-pytest-shutil.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unix -> UNIX, Unix, uni
python2-pytest-shutil.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) py -> pt, p, y
python2-pytest-shutil.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US goodie -> foodie, goodies, goo die
python3-pytest-shutil.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) goodie -> foodie, goodies, goo die
python3-pytest-shutil.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unix -> UNIX, Unix, uni
python3-pytest-shutil.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) py -> pt, p, y
python3-pytest-shutil.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US goodie -> foodie, goodies, goo die
python-pytest-shutil.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) goodie -> foodie, goodies, goo die
python-pytest-shutil.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unix -> UNIX, Unix, uni
python-pytest-shutil.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) py -> pt, p, y
python-pytest-shutil.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US goodie -> foodie, goodies, goo die
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
python3-pytest-shutil.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) goodie -> foodie, goodies, goo die
python3-pytest-shutil.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unix -> UNIX, Unix, uni
python3-pytest-shutil.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) py -> pt, p, y
python3-pytest-shutil.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US goodie -> foodie, goodies, goo die
python2-pytest-shutil.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) goodie -> foodie, goodies, goo die
python2-pytest-shutil.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unix -> UNIX, Unix, uni
python2-pytest-shutil.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) py -> pt, p, y
python2-pytest-shutil.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US goodie -> foodie, goodies, goo die
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/talbert/fedora-review/1481876-python-pytest-shutil/srpm/python-pytest-shutil.spec	2017-08-25 20:54:22.134066765 -0400
+++ /home/talbert/fedora-review/1481876-python-pytest-shutil/srpm-unpacked/python-pytest-shutil.spec	2017-08-15 14:54:37.000000000 -0400
@@ -11,6 +11,4 @@
 Source0:        https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/%{srcname}/%{srcname}-%{version}.tar.gz
 
-# reported upstream in https://github.com/manahl/pytest-plugins/issues/67
-# use /etc instead of /bin for chdir test as that links to /usr/bin on fedora
 Patch1:         pytest-shutil-use-etc-dir.patch
 


Requires
--------
python3-pytest-shutil (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3-pytest

python2-pytest-shutil (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python2-pytest



Provides
--------
python3-pytest-shutil:
    python3-pytest-shutil
    python3.6dist(pytest-shutil)
    python3dist(pytest-shutil)

python2-pytest-shutil:
    python-pytest-shutil
    python2-pytest-shutil
    python2.7dist(pytest-shutil)
    python2dist(pytest-shutil)



Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/pytest-shutil/pytest-shutil-1.2.6.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : b622570ba859b24607f65e6a4839214887d85e405c6d94acb72f30d9acf1d6f2
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b622570ba859b24607f65e6a4839214887d85e405c6d94acb72f30d9acf1d6f2


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1481876 -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

(In reply to Scott Talbert from comment #6)
> Package Review
> ==============
> 
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed
> 
> Summary of Issues:
> - Please check/fix the Requires

Good catch. Done. 

> - Please query upstream about the lack of LICENSE file

https://github.com/manahl/pytest-plugins/issues/68

> - Is there a reason you didn't package the latest version (1.2.11)?

Nope. This was the newest one on pypi at the time I initially packaged it. ;) 
Updating to 1.2.11 now. 

> - Your spec file doesn't match what's in the srpm

Yeah, I apparently added comments above the patch in the spec file pointing to the upstream issue I filed on it. ;( Should be in sync now. Sorry about that. 

Spec URL: http://www.scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/review/python-pytest-shutil/python-pytest-shutil.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/review/python-pytest-shutil/python-pytest-shutil-1.2.11-1.fc28.src.rpm

koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21484310

Approved.

Thanks very much for the review.

(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pytest-shutil

Built in rawhide.