Spec: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/kate-pate/python-pyplete.spec SRPM: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/kate-pate/python-pyplete-0.0.5-1.fc20.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6163424 FAS: patches Description: PyPlete provides dynamic autocompletion for Python. It uses pysmell but unlike the standard version of it, PyPlete is dynamic, it does not need to execute a command to pre-analyze the code. It is useful for analyzing (or autocompleting) Python code.
Similar to as mentioned in the pysmell review over here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028817#c1 drop the egg-info from the tarball, let the RPM build generate it %{__python}-->%{__python2} %{python_sitelib}-->%{python2_sitelib} https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Eggs#Providing_Eggs_using_Setuptools : suggests simply doing %{python2_sitelib}/* in %files to catch the module and egg-info directory First 3 description lines have trailing whitespace As does line 33 above %files
Are you interested in a review swap? Maybe bug #1225231 is for you.
Any update here? Can I take the review?
Package Review ============== Need Work: 1- Request upstream to add a License file and include it in tarball. 2- Update macros in %%build and %%install from %{__python} to %{__python2}. 3- In %%files update %{python_sitelib} to %{python2_sitelib}. 4- In %%prep you must remove *egg.info. 5- There many spelling-error warning in rpmlint than can be fixed. Fedora is moving to Python 3 so ask upstream about support it. ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [OK]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [-]: 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. [OK]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [OK]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [OK]: Changelog in prescribed format. [OK]: 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 [OK]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [OK]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [OK]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [OK]: Package does not generate any conflict. [OK]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [OK]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [OK]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. [OK]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [OK]: Package installs properly. [OK]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [OK]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [OK]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [OK]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [OK]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [OK]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [OK]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [OK]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [OK]: Dist tag is present. [OK]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [OK]: Permissions on files are set properly. [OK]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [OK]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [OK]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [OK]: Package is not relocatable. [OK]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [OK]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [OK]: File names are valid UTF-8. [OK]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [OK]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [OK]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [OK]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [NW]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [OK]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [OK]: Package functions as described. [OK]: Latest version is packaged. [-]: 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. [OK]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [OK]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [OK]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [OK]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [OK]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [OK]: Buildroot is not present [OK]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [OK]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [OK]: SourceX is a working URL. [OK]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [OK]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [OK]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-pyplete-0.0.5-1.fc21.noarch.rpm python-pyplete-0.0.5-1.fc21.src.rpm python-pyplete.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) autocompletion -> auto completion, auto-completion, completion python-pyplete.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US autocompletion -> auto completion, auto-completion, completion python-pyplete.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pysmell -> smelly, smell python-pyplete.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee python-pyplete.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US autocompleting -> auto completing, auto-completing, completing python-pyplete.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) autocompletion -> auto completion, auto-completion, completion python-pyplete.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US autocompletion -> auto completion, auto-completion, completion python-pyplete.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pysmell -> smelly, smell python-pyplete.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee python-pyplete.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US autocompleting -> auto completing, auto-completing, completing 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python-pyplete.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) autocompletion -> auto completion, auto-completion, completion python-pyplete.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US autocompletion -> auto completion, auto-completion, completion python-pyplete.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pysmell -> smelly, smell python-pyplete.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee python-pyplete.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US autocompleting -> auto completing, auto-completing, completing 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Requires -------- python-pyplete (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-pysmell Provides -------- python-pyplete: python-pyplete Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/pyplete/pyplete-0.0.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a0dd088a3fd64c564a589341d90edb73e391f0c2702c079f582a53275f615dd3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a0dd088a3fd64c564a589341d90edb73e391f0c2702c079f582a53275f615dd3 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1028818 Buildroot used: fedora-21-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
(In reply to William Moreno from comment #3) > Any update here? > > Can I take the review? Please do. :-) I was searching for open reviews to process and this is already taken, so please assign this report to yourself. BTW in my humble opinion the spell checker warnings are bogus.
Hi, do want to continue with this review?
Seems not.
The needinfo request[s] on this closed bug have been removed as they have been unresolved for 1000 days