Bug 1488156

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

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


Issues:
=======

Please fix the following rpmlint issues:

 * description-line-too-long
 * macro-in-comment


===== 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.
[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.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: 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]: 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]: 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.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[?]: 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.
[?]: 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.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Installation errors
-------------------
INFO: mock.py version 1.4.3 starting (python version = 3.6.2)...
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: 1.4.3
INFO: Mock Version: 1.4.3
Finish: chroot init
INFO: installing package(s): /home/churchyard/rpmbuild/FedoraReview/1488156-python-ludolph-zabbix/results/python3-ludolph-zabbix-1.7-1.fc28.noarch.rpm /home/churchyard/rpmbuild/FedoraReview/1488156-python-ludolph-zabbix/results/python2-ludolph-zabbix-1.7-1.fc28.noarch.rpm
ERROR: Command failed: 
 # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 27 --disableplugin=local --setopt=deltarpm=False install /home/churchyard/rpmbuild/FedoraReview/1488156-python-ludolph-zabbix/results/python3-ludolph-zabbix-1.7-1.fc28.noarch.rpm /home/churchyard/rpmbuild/FedoraReview/1488156-python-ludolph-zabbix/results/python2-ludolph-zabbix-1.7-1.fc28.noarch.rpm



Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python2-ludolph-zabbix-1.7-1.fc28.noarch.rpm
          python3-ludolph-zabbix-1.7-1.fc28.noarch.rpm
          python-ludolph-zabbix-1.7-1.fc28.src.rpm
python2-ludolph-zabbix.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugini -> plugin, plugins, plugin i
python2-ludolph-zabbix.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C Python 2 module with Ludolph: Zabbix API plugini. Use the python3-ludolph and python3-ludolph-zabbix package to get the actual application and service.
python-ludolph-zabbix.src:65: W: macro-in-comment %{python2_sitelib}
python-ludolph-zabbix.src:65: W: macro-in-comment %{pypi_name}
python-ludolph-zabbix.src:72: W: macro-in-comment %{python3_sitelib}
python-ludolph-zabbix.src:72: W: macro-in-comment %{pypi_name}
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings.

description-line-too-long!
macro-in-comment!



Requires
--------
python2-ludolph-zabbix (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python2-ludolph
    python2-zabbix-api-erigones

python3-ludolph-zabbix (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3-ludolph
    python3-zabbix-api-erigones



Provides
--------
python2-ludolph-zabbix:
    python-ludolph-zabbix
    python2-ludolph-zabbix
    python2.7dist(ludolph-zabbix)
    python2dist(ludolph-zabbix)

python3-ludolph-zabbix:
    python3-ludolph-zabbix
    python3.6dist(ludolph-zabbix)
    python3dist(ludolph-zabbix)



Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/l/ludolph-zabbix/ludolph-zabbix-1.7.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 1a5641cbce635ca967c3f01629018a59d30c5db96e6fa29bb972fad7d559385a
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1a5641cbce635ca967c3f01629018a59d30c5db96e6fa29bb972fad7d559385a


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (7737a2a) last change: 2015-11-26
Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 1488156 -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, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

Sorry I have forgotten to remove unused commented lines in the spec. Also updated the description to be in two lines.

Both spec and srpm files updated in GitHub repo.

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python2-ludolph-zabbix-1.7-1.fc28.noarch.rpm
          python3-ludolph-zabbix-1.7-1.fc28.noarch.rpm
          python-ludolph-zabbix-1.7-1.fc28.src.rpm
python2-ludolph-zabbix.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugini -> plugin, plugins, plugin i
python2-ludolph-zabbix.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C Python 2 module with Ludolph: Zabbix API plugini. Use the python3-ludolph and python3-ludolph-zabbix\
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.


This line is still too long:

Python 2 module with Ludolph: Zabbix API plugini. Use the python3-ludolph and python3-%{pypi_name}\

Sorry, my local rpmlint wasn't marking this as error and warning, I have updated the files at GitHub and run the fedora-review tool (in order to have Fedora rpmlint review) and seems to be ok now.

Review tool is still complaining about dependencies, but I have received repositories for them and are already building in koji so hopefully, they will be available soon.

Approved.

(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-ludolph-zabbix. You may commit to the branch "f27" in about 10 minutes.

python-ludolph-zabbix-1.7-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-d1933fdb7c

python-ludolph-zabbix-1.7-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-c8ccbf95c7

python-ludolph-zabbix-1.7-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-e6f9fcc1f1

python-ludolph-zabbix-1.7-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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-d1933fdb7c

python-ludolph-zabbix-1.7-1.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-e6f9fcc1f1

python-ludolph-zabbix-1.7-1.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-2017-c8ccbf95c7

python-ludolph-zabbix-1.7-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

python-ludolph-zabbix-1.7-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

python-ludolph-zabbix-1.7-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.