Bug 1708161 (python-testfixtures)

 - Why python3-nng here?

%{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-nng}

 - That doesn't seem to be the correct URL either:

URL:            https://github.com/praw-dev/prawcore

Should be: https://github.com/Simplistix/testfixtures

 - Packages the missing deps for the tests:

# Not test for now due to a bunch of missing dependencies  
#%check
#%{__python3} setup.py test

 - The license is MIT not BSD!




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

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


Issues:
=======
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
  Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-testfixtures
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names


===== 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 95 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/bob/packaging/review/python-testfixtures/review-python-
     testfixtures/licensecheck.txt
[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]: 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 40960 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]: 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 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]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
     packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
     versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
     use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[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).
[?]: 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.
[x]: 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: python3-testfixtures-6.8.2-1.fc31.noarch.rpm
          python-testfixtures-6.8.2-1.fc31.src.rpm
python-testfixtures.src:39: W: macro-in-comment %check
python-testfixtures.src:40: W: macro-in-comment %{__python3}
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

What's the status here? It seems good to go with a small update.

(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1)
>  - Why python3-nng here?
> 
> %{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-nng}


Copy-and-paste... I didn't do my job check it. Fixed.

>  - That doesn't seem to be the correct URL either:
> 
> URL:            https://github.com/praw-dev/prawcore
> 
> Should be: https://github.com/Simplistix/testfixtures

The same

>  - Packages the missing deps for the tests:
> 
> # Not test for now due to a bunch of missing dependencies  
> #%check
> #%{__python3} setup.py test

Deps are now available for review. But it seems that I can run all test due to the limitation of the build system.
 
>  - The license is MIT not BSD!

Fixed

* Sat Dec 28 2019 Fabian Affolter <mail> - 6.10.3-1
- Update to latest upstream release 6.10.3

* Sat Jun 08 2019 Fabian Affolter <mail> - 6.8.2-2
- Fix license, URL and naming (rhbz#1708161)

Updated files:
Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-testfixtures.spec
SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-testfixtures-6.10.3-1.fc31.src.rpm

Sorry, no scratch build yet (2019-12-29 10:51:00,261 [ERROR] koji: ServerOffline: database outage).

Robert-André, I'll assign this to you, since you have already done most of the review work.
If you can't take this for any reason, feel free to reassign to me.

Thanks guys, for all your help and support. Happy new year.

Oops, upstream is now on 6.14.0. Please update!

%changelog
* Sat Apr 18 2020 Fabian Affolter <mail> - 6.14.0-1
- Update to latest upstream release 6.14.0

Updated files:
Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-testfixtures.spec
SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-testfixtures-6.14.0-1.fc31.src.rpm

I don't Robert-André does the review. He only posted a comment a year ago and never responded. I will unassign this bug report and anybody comfortable with performing the review can do it properly (assign it himself, change the status to ASSIGNED, and set the fedora-review flag to 
"?").

Version 6.14.1 is available ;)

Spec file looks good at first sight.

Some tests fail on Rawhide and F32 (but not on F31). The same test fail with the latest upstream release. An issue with Python >= 3.8?
https://paste.centos.org/view/65157bb7

%changelog
* Wed Jun 03 2020 Fabian Affolter <mail> - 6.14.1-1
- Exclude the failing tests for now
- Update to latest upstream release 6.14.1

Updated files:
Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-testfixtures.spec
SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-testfixtures-6.14.1-1.fc31.src.rpm

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: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 95 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/mohamed/Documents/1708161-python-testfixtures/licensecheck.txt
[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 40960 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: 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 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[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]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
     packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
     versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
     use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: 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:
[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: python3-testfixtures-6.14.1-1.fc33.noarch.rpm
          python-testfixtures-6.14.1-1.fc33.src.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend.
warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend.
python3-testfixtures.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/Simplistix/testfixtures <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
-> False positive (URL seems to works, ithout redirection
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/t/testfixtures/testfixtures-6.14.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 58d2b3146d93bc5ddb0cd24e0ccacb13e29bdb61e5c81235c58f7b8ee4470366
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 58d2b3146d93bc5ddb0cd24e0ccacb13e29bdb61e5c81235c58f7b8ee4470366


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



Provides
--------
python3-testfixtures:
    python-testfixtures
    python3-testfixtures
    python3.9-testfixtures
    python3.9dist(testfixtures)
    python3dist(testfixtures)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1708161 -P python
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: PHP, Java, Ocaml, fonts, C/C++, Haskell, Perl, SugarActivity, R
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH


NOTE: you should drop the bundled *.egg-info directory in %prep, as you recommended me ;).

This package is APPROVED.

Thanks for the review.

(In reply to Mohamed El Morabity from comment #11)
> NOTE: you should drop the bundled *.egg-info directory in %prep, as you
> recommended me ;).

It's always easier to spot the errors which other people are making than my own. ;-)