Bug 741529

May I ask what should be done before this package is reviewed and included in the distribution?  Fwiw, I downloaded sten's src.rpm and built a working rpm without problem.

I really hope the process of adding/upgrading packages in Fedora could use a much higher priority and take much shorter time.

I will review this package

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

Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated

==== Generic ====
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
     least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[!]: MUST Buildroot is not present
     Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
     Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging
     for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
     Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST 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 %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.

rpmlint python-futures-2.1.2-1.fc17.src.rpm

python-futures.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Backport -> Back port, Back-port, Backpacker
python-futures.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US callables -> callable, callable s, calculable
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.


rpmlint python-futures-2.1.2-1.fc17.noarch.rpm

python-futures.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Backport -> Back port, Back-port, Backpacker
python-futures.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US callables -> callable, callable s, calculable
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.


[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
/home/slaanesh/Documents/fedora/741529/futures-2.1.2.tar.gz :
  MD5SUM this package     : a6fa247e3c5fe3d60d8e12f1b873cc88
  MD5SUM upstream package : a6fa247e3c5fe3d60d8e12f1b873cc88

[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
     /usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
     --requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
     upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.

Issues:

* Project URL:

 The main project's website is at the following url:
 http://code.google.com/p/pythonfutures/

 But the python guidelines specify a different addres for python packages, so I let you decide which one to put:
 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_spec_file


* EPEL 5 rpmlint:

[!]: MUST Buildroot is not present
     Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
[!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
     Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging
     for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
     Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5

 These are ok if you plan to build also for EPEL 5; otherwise please remove them.


* Spelling rpmlint:

[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.

python-futures.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Backport -> Back port, Back-port, Backpacker
python-futures.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US callables -> callable, callable s, calculable

python-futures.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Backport -> Back port, Back-port, Backpacker
python-futures.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US callables -> callable, callable s, calculable

 These can be ignored.


* Spec file:

- Please add a space between %install and %clean sections.
- According to the python packaging guidelines, you can shorten the file section and the BuildRequires should be a bit different:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Eggs#Upstream_Eggs

Thanks!

Updated package:

spec: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/python-futures/python-futures.spec
srpm: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/python-futures/python-futures-2.1.2-2.fc16.src.rpm

I had to download the src.rpm file to check the changes as the spec file has not been updated but everything is ok.

Approved.

Thanks,
--Simone

Thanks for the very quick review!

PS! 
Spec file was cached in browser it seems, time stamp is identical on srpm and spec:

 http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/python-futures/


New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: python-futures
Short Description: Backport of the concurrent.futures package from Python 3.2
Owners: terjeros
Branches: f16 f17
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

python-futures-2.1.2-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-futures-2.1.2-2.fc17

python-futures-2.1.2-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-futures-2.1.2-2.fc16

python-futures-2.1.2-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository.

python-futures-2.1.2-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.

python-futures-2.1.2-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.

*** Bug 1066211 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: python-futures
New Branches: el6
Owners: terjeros

Git done (by process-git-requests).

python-futures-2.1.6-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-futures-2.1.6-1.el6

python-futures-2.1.6-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.