Bug 266001

Summary: Review Request: webunit - Python web testing framework
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: W. Michael Petullo <mike>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Thomas Spura <tomspur>
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: fedora-package-review, notting, tomspur
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2010-11-02 12:43:48 EDT Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 201449    

Description W. Michael Petullo 2007-08-29 21:37:37 EDT
Spec URL: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/webunit.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/webunit-0.4-1.src.rpm
A framework for performing client-side tests of web applications, based on
Comment 1 Jason Tibbitts 2009-07-17 12:42:49 EDT
I just saw this ticket, which nobody has looked at because you set the fedora-review flag when you submitted it so it never appeared in the review queue.

If you still want to submit this package, please clear the fedora-review tag and bring the package up to today's packaging guidelines.  And you should probably make the package noarch as well, because I can't see any reason for it to be arch-specific.

webunit.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long A framework for performing 
  client-side tests of web applications, based on PyUnit.
webunit.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPL
webunit.x86_64: E: no-binary
webunit.x86_64: E: non-executable-script 
  /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/httpsession.py 0644
webunit-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPL
webunit-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package
Comment 2 W. Michael Petullo 2009-07-17 20:29:37 EDT
Spec URL: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/webunit.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/webunit-0.4-2.fc11.src.rpm
Comment 3 Fabian Affolter 2009-08-03 07:07:38 EDT
Some comment after a quick look at your spec file.

- Don't mix '$RPM_BUILD_ROOT' and '%{buildroot}'
- README is missing in %doc
- Is there any note about the license in the source?
Comment 4 Fabian Affolter 2009-09-18 03:25:37 EDT
Mike, do you still want to proceed with this review request?
Comment 5 W. Michael Petullo 2009-09-18 20:00:03 EDT
This project's license is documented as LGPL at http://sourceforge.net/projects/webunit/develop/.

Spec URL: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/webunit.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/webunit-0.4-3.fc11.src.rpm
Comment 6 Fabian Affolter 2009-12-23 06:52:50 EST
- Do you really need 'python_sitearch'?  I guess that this is a left-over from the template.
- Can you please preserve the timestamps in the install section?

The biggest issue is still the missing license statement.
Comment 7 Fabian Affolter 2009-12-23 08:12:43 EST
Upstream closed the bug [1] about the license as 'wont fix'.  

[1] https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=browse&group_id=20323&atid=120323
Comment 8 W. Michael Petullo 2010-02-14 16:45:40 EST
Spec URL: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/webunit.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/webunit-0.4-4.fc12.src.rpm

- Remove python_sitearch.
- Preserve timestaps when using install.
Comment 9 Steve Traylen 2010-03-05 15:31:20 EST
I can't see any license statement anywhere? How do you derive that its

also there some rpmlint errors that can definitely be fixed:

webunit.spec:44: W: macro-in-%changelog %{buildroot}
webunit.src:44: W: macro-in-%changelog %{buildroot}
webunit.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/httpsession.py 0644L /usr/bin/env
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
Comment 10 W. Michael Petullo 2010-03-05 20:35:50 EST
Spec URL: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/webunit.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/webunit-0.4-5.fc12.src.rpm

- Fix macro in changelog
- Chmod httpsession.py 755

As stated in comment #5, the license is noted at the project's SourceForge site.
Comment 11 Steve Traylen 2010-03-21 11:33:25 EDT
Copy and paste messages you sent to and from upstream about the license
as comments into the .spec file.

Then the licensing is clear where it comes from.

Comment 12 W. Michael Petullo 2010-03-21 13:46:39 EDT
Spec URL: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/webunit.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/webunit-0.4-6.fc12.src.rpm
Comment 13 Thomas Spura 2010-04-25 20:24:09 EDT
To be honest:

Is it worth to get a package into fedora, which is not actively maintained?
(Tarball 8 years old, last commit in svn 4 years old)
Or do you want to become the new maintainer and further improve/develop this?

It looks like this could work on python3 (just looked at the source, untested), maybe you could do a subpackage as described in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
Comment 14 Thomas Spura 2010-10-26 07:50:51 EDT
Ping, I'll close this soon, when no response by the reporter...