Bug 574531

Summary: Review Request: python26-nose - The "nose" testing package for the python26 EPEL5 package
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Dave Malcolm <dmalcolm>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Steve Traylen <steve.traylen>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: derks, fedora-package-review, notting, steve.traylen
Target Milestone: ---Flags: steve.traylen: fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: python26-nose-0.11.1-3.el5 Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2010-11-10 17:03:18 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On: 574506    
Bug Blocks: 601891, 619355    

Description Dave Malcolm 2010-03-17 18:19:18 UTC
Spec URL:
http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/epel-packaging/python26-nose.spec

SRPM URL:
http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/epel-packaging/python26-nose-0.11.1-2.el5.src.rpm

Note: this is purely intended for the EPEL5 branch, not for Fedora

Description:
This is the python26-nose package from IUS for EL5:
http://dl.iuscommunity.org/pub/ius/stable/Redhat/5/SRPMS/python26-nose-0.11.1-1.ius.el5.src.rpm
reworked somewhat for import into EPEL5

Diff versus that specfile:
http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/epel-packaging/python26-nose-from-0.11.1-1.ius-to-0.11.1-1.diff

The rpmlint output is clean, apart from this warning (due to the dist tag):
python26-nose.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.11.1-2 0.11.1-2.el5

Comment 1 Steve Traylen 2010-04-24 22:10:06 UTC
Hi,

The BR on coreutils is not needed since:

$ rpm -q --requires buildsys-build | grep coreutils
coreutils  

and also there is use of both $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot}.

Comment 2 Dave Malcolm 2010-04-25 19:54:51 UTC
Thanks!

Updated specfile:
http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/epel-packaging/python26-nose.spec

Updated SRPM:
http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/epel-packaging/python26-nose-0.11.1-3.el5.src.rpm

Diff of specfile since comment #0:
http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/epel-packaging/python26-nose-from-0.11.1-2-to-0.11.1-3.diff

rpmlint output is as before (modulo the "release" change):

python26-nose.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.11.1-3 0.11.1-3.el5
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Comment 3 Steve Traylen 2010-06-28 22:32:40 UTC
Sorry for the delay:

One trivial item but important.

Review: python26-nose: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=574531
Date:   29th June 2010.
Mock Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2279023

* PASS: rpmlint output
$ rpmlint SPECS/python26-nose.spec \
          SRPMS/python26-nose-0.11.1-3.el5.src.rpm \
          RPMS/noarch/python26-nose-0.11.1-3.el5.noarch.rpm 
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
i.e clean.

* PASS: Named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
Yes python26 versioned nose .tar bal..
* PASS: spec file name same as  base package %{name}.
Yes
* PASS: Packaging Guidelines.
Yes
* PASS: Approved license in .spec file.
Yes. LGPLv2
* FAIL: License on Source code.
Wrong, to me it is LGPLv2+ 
* PASS: Include LICENSE file or similar if it exist.
lgpl.txt is included.
* PASS: Written in American English.
* PASS: Spec file legible. 
* PASS: Included source must match upstream source.
$ md5sum nose-0.11.1.tar.gz ../SOURCES/nose-0.11.1.tar.gz 
00789d016f81ec52f666f020c644447e  nose-0.11.1.tar.gz
00789d016f81ec52f666f020c644447e  ../SOURCES/nose-0.11.1.tar.gz
* PASS: Build on one architecture.
See koji
* PASS: Not building on an architecture must highlighted.
See koji.
* PASS: Build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
See koji.
* PASS: Handle locales properly. 
No locales.
* PASS: ldconfig must be called on shared libs.
No shared libs.
* PASS: No bundled copies of system libraries.
None.
* PASS: Package must state why relocatable if relocatable.
Not relocatable.
* PASS: A package must own all directories that it creates
Creates /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/nose but owns it.
* PASS:  No duplicate files in %files listings. 
none.
* PASS:  Permissions on files must be set properly. %defattr
Indeed they are.
* PASS:  %clean section contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
Yes.
* PASS:  Each package must consistently use macros.
Yes.
* PASS:  The package must contain code, or permissable content.
Indeed it does.
* PASS:  Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.  
No large docs.
* PASS:  %doc  must not affect the runtime of the application. 
Nope.
* PASS:  Header files must be in a -devel package.
None.
* PASS:  Static libraries must be in a -static package.
None.
* PASS:  Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
None.
* PASS:  Then library files that end in .so 
None.
* PASS:  devel packages must require the exact base package
None.
* PASS:  No .la libtool archives
None.
* PASS:  GUI apps should have %{name}.desktop file
None.
* PASS:  No files or directories already owned by other packages. 
No.
* PASS:  %install must run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
It does.
* PASS:  All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
They are.

Summary:
Fail: Please see the LPGLv2 vs LGPLv2+ above.

Comment 4 Steve Traylen 2010-06-28 22:34:45 UTC
And one last item. Upstream looks to be:

http://somethingaboutorange.com/mrl/projects/nose/0.11.3/

rather that 0.11.1

Steve.

Comment 5 Steve Traylen 2010-08-30 18:41:34 UTC
Please ignore my "fail" in comment #2.

It is licensed quite correctly.

So other than possible getting an upgrade this is approved.

Steve.

Comment 6 Steve Traylen 2010-09-28 09:11:24 UTC
Hi Dave,

 This is all reviewed and approved can we (you) proceed?

  Steve.

Comment 7 Steve Traylen 2010-09-28 09:13:45 UTC
Just realised there are two of these , second one bug #606551

Comment 8 BJ Dierkes 2010-09-28 16:24:03 UTC
I'll close the other review (606551), as this one actually has some traction.

Comment 9 BJ Dierkes 2010-09-28 16:25:07 UTC
*** Bug 606551 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 10 Dave Malcolm 2010-09-28 18:30:49 UTC
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: python26-nose
Short Description:  The "nose" testing package for the python26 EPEL package
Owners: dmalcolm
Branches: el5
InitialCC:

Comment 11 Kevin Fenzi 2010-09-29 18:42:06 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 12 Dave Malcolm 2010-09-29 20:04:38 UTC
Thanks!

Import done:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=python26-nose.git;a=commitdiff;h=407f389baac432eb506efb7814e114a35a95ce84

Building python26-nose-0.11.1-3.el5 for dist-5E-epel-testing-candidate
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2497504

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2010-09-29 20:11:39 UTC
python26-nose-0.11.1-3.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python26-nose-0.11.1-3.el5

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2010-09-30 17:08:51 UTC
python26-nose-0.11.1-3.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update python26-nose'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python26-nose-0.11.1-3.el5

Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2010-11-10 17:03:11 UTC
python26-nose-0.11.1-3.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.