Bug 1663442

This package built on koji:  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=31808834

Upgrade path from the previous name: The `python3-bsddb3` name is now a subpackage of `python-bsddb3`. The current NVR is higher than the latest one with the old name, so the rename should not be noticeable even without explicit Obsolete/Provide declarations.

%if %{with python3_other}
%doc ChangeLog PKG-INFO README.txt

should likely be:

%if %{with python3_other}
%files -n %{python3_other_name}
%doc ChangeLog PKG-INFO README.txt

Currently when testing, I'm ending up with both, Python 3.4 and 3.6 in python34-bsddb3-6.2.6-3.el7.x86_64.rpm

Correct, my bad -- I have checked that the python36 is used for building and forgot to chech the resulting packages :)
The package/SPEC URLs should now point to files with the `%files -n %{python3_other_name}` added; the EPEL build now generates both python{34,36} subpackages with appropriate contents.

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

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

===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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.
[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.
[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 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.
[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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-bsddb3-6.2.6-3.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          python-bsddb3-debugsource-6.2.6-3.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          python-bsddb3-6.2.6-3.fc28.src.rpm
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
python-bsddb3-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://pypi.org/project/bsddb3 <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
python3-bsddb3.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://pypi.org/project/bsddb3 <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.



Requires
--------
python-bsddb3-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

python3-bsddb3 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libdb-5.3.so()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    libpython3.6m.so.1.0()(64bit)
    python(abi)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
python-bsddb3-debugsource:
    python-bsddb3-debugsource
    python-bsddb3-debugsource(x86-64)

python3-bsddb3:
    python3-bsddb3
    python3-bsddb3(x86-64)
    python3.6dist(bsddb3)
    python3dist(bsddb3)



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
python3-bsddb3: /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/bsddb3/_pybsddb.cpython-36m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/b/bsddb3/bsddb3-6.2.6.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 42d621f4037425afcb16b67d5600c4556271a071a9a7f7f2c2b1ba65bc582d05
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 42d621f4037425afcb16b67d5600c4556271a071a9a7f7f2c2b1ba65bc582d05


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1663442
Buildroot used: fedora-28-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6



Aside of that:

 - The python{34,36} subpackages for EPEL 7 are looking good as well (checked them separately, just not posted here).
 - Provides/Obsoletes as per guidelines is not applicable here, because it is only a source not binary RPM renaming.


Thus: APPROVED


Please do not forget to retire the python3-bsddb3 package properly once builds are coming from python-bsddb3.

Thanks for the review and approval!

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-bsddb3

python-bsddb3-6.2.6-3.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-163cfdfc6a

python-bsddb3-6.2.6-3.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-2ea93298e4

python-bsddb3-6.2.6-3.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-31ccaa2539

python-bsddb3-6.2.6-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 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-EPEL-2019-31ccaa2539

python-bsddb3-6.2.6-3.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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-2019-2ea93298e4

python-bsddb3-6.2.6-3.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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-2019-163cfdfc6a

python-bsddb3-6.2.6-3.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

python-bsddb3-6.2.6-3.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

python-bsddb3-6.2.6-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.