Bug 1632436

*** Bug 1632841 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

===== 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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.7/site-
     packages, /usr/lib/python3.7
[X]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[X]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[X]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[X]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[X]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[X]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[X]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[X]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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: 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 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:
[X]: Latest version is packaged.
[X]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[X]: %check is present and all tests pass.

[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.


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: python3-jeepney-0.4-1.fc30.noarch.rpm
          python-jeepney-0.4-1.fc30.src.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

PLease fix the URL in the spec file 

Regards!

the source URL

Cheers!

Btw the package can also have its documentation built through sphinx. It even includes a man page. It might be nice to have those (but definitely not a blocker for the review).

Luis, thanks.

Harris, I'll take the bits from bz1632841.

Spec URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-jeepney.spec
SRPM URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-jeepney-0.4-1.fc29.src.rpm

I've recreated the SRPM and uploaded both spec and srpm. No idea why there were different.

Added html docs.

Didn't add a manpage (I don't think a Python module needs one).

Hi Miro

check 
Generic:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.

fix these to approve the package.

cheers,

There is nothing to parallelize, the make runs 1 sphinx process.

Thanks for your check

+1
Cheers

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-jeepney