Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/hroncok/SPECS/master/python-httpretty.spec SRPM URL: http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/7353/6247353/python-httpretty-0.6.5-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: HTTPretty is a HTTP client mock library for Python 100% inspired on ruby's FakeWeb. If you come from ruby this would probably sound familiar :) Fedora Account System Username: churchyard Note: This is not the latest upstream release, the reasons are described here: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2013-December/009842.html
Woah, in my todo list~ Use it for some personal study ;) I will review it later.
Christopher, could you please either do the review or keep it free for someone else? I appreciate you help, but while you "sit on" this review, no one else can take it if they like to. Thanks
I'm sorry, after updates in rawhide of selinux and mock, mock doesn't work now. Reassign.
I'll do the review. It wasn't on my todo list, but on my "this looks interesting" list :)
First review: - http://falcao.it/HTTPretty/ seems more appropriate for the URL tag - upstream latest version is 0.7.1 and contains the tests/ directory - have you filed an issue related to your patch upstream ? - have you checked whether autoreq finds the dependencies ? - readability: maybe add a blank line before each "%if 0%{?with_python3}" - have you opened an issue upstream to make the test suite deterministic ? sounds like a temporary fix to run the tests until they all succeed - you should maybe ask upstream to put the COPYING file in the source tarball - you can replace "/usr/bin/nosetests-3*" with "nosetests-%{python3_version}" or /usr/bin should at least be replaced by %{_bindir} f-r shows other packaging issues below. 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. [?]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/dridi/fedora/_reviews/1036755-python-httpretty/licensecheck.txt [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. Note: Macros in: python-httpretty (description), python3-httpretty (description) [-]: 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. [!]: 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. [?]: 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 20480 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]: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [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 do not use a name that already exist [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. [-]: 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]: 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. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-httpretty [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-httpretty-0.6.5-1.fc21.noarch.rpm python3-httpretty-0.6.5-1.fc21.noarch.rpm python-httpretty-0.6.5-1.fc21.src.rpm python-httpretty.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python-httplib2 python-httpretty.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python-urllib3 python-httpretty.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.7.0-1 ['0.6.5-1.fc21', '0.6.5-1'] python3-httpretty.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python3-httplib2 python3-httpretty.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python3-urllib3 python-httpretty.src: W: invalid-url Source1: httpretty-0.6.5-tests.zip 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-httpretty python3-httpretty python-httpretty.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python-httplib2 python-httpretty.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python-urllib3 python-httpretty.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.7.0-1 ['0.6.5-1.fc21', '0.6.5-1'] python3-httpretty.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python3-httplib2 python3-httpretty.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python3-urllib3 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/dridi/fedora/_reviews/1036755-python-httpretty/srpm/python-httpretty.spec 2013-12-21 16:40:48.938660034 +0100 +++ /home/dridi/fedora/_reviews/1036755-python-httpretty/srpm-unpacked/python-httpretty.spec 2013-12-02 15:38:11.000000000 +0100 @@ -15,5 +15,5 @@ Source1: %{pypi_name}-%{version}-tests.zip -# Only check equality of numbers, not objects +# Only check equality of number, not objects Patch0: %{pypi_name}-test418.patch @@ -99,6 +99,5 @@ %check -# the tests sometimes fail and sometimes don't -# let them run until they're OK :D +# the tests are going to fail in koji, so let them until nosetests --verbosity 2; do :; done %if 0%{?with_python3} Requires -------- python-httpretty (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-coverage python-httplib2 python-mock python-requests python-tornado python-urllib3 python3-httpretty (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-coverage python3-httplib2 python3-mock python3-requests python3-tornado python3-urllib3 Provides -------- python-httpretty: python-httpretty python3-httpretty: python3-httpretty Source checksums ---------------- http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/h/httpretty/httpretty-0.6.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5914118c511c05b1d02c52c0330b4a1c4a826ec7dca6f2bf42294c40799d7e31 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5914118c511c05b1d02c52c0330b4a1c4a826ec7dca6f2bf42294c40799d7e31 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1036755 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG
I'm very sorry for long no-response. Will look at your comments now.
So apparently, there seems to be upstream effort to support Python 3. Let's wait how that turns out. https://github.com/gabrielfalcao/HTTPretty/pull/143
Is the issue 144 the reason why you run the test suite multiple times ? https://github.com/gabrielfalcao/HTTPretty/issues/144
It looks like it.
The 0.8 release of HTTPretty (2014-02-03) supports python3.
Thanks for info, I'll look at it an package it soon.
FYI, boto's test suite requires HTTPretty and is thus currently broken: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1072923
I need HTTPretty for python3-boto test suite, so guess that would be the same issue.
I have an interest in this and have worked with upstream to get it package ready. I'm willing to take this on so we can get it moving. Let me know (or if nothing happens in the next few days).
Jamie, feel free to take it, but only if you will also package python3 subpackage, I'm now busy with different things so this might consume a significant time if I do it.
Jamie, what's the status here, should I do the package, or you will?
Btw, even though is was originally a review swap with Miro, I'll continue the review anyway. So feel free to take it, you'd still have a reviewer.
The spec is more or less complete unfortunately the python 3 tests don't pass. This doesn't seem to be something that is the packages fault but i think that there is some deterministic test cases upstream. I've had a bit of a look to see what i can do upstream but haven't been able to dedicate any quality time to fixing this up.
OK, would you share your works, so I can try it and see what I can do?
SPEC: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~jamielennox/python-httpretty.spec SRPM: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~jamielennox/python-httpretty-0.8.0-1.fc20.src.rpm It's not a packaging issue. It appears that the tests are unstable and it alternates between giving me a successful and unsuccessful build. I'll see if i can figure out what's going on with the test code upstream.
Dridi, do you still want to do the review, or should I do it?
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #21) > Dridi, do you still want to do the review, or should I do it? I don't have time for this today, but it should be ok within the week. I'll gladly do the review since most of it has already been done, unless my latency is too high for you :)
I think a week should be fine considering this bug is here since December. Thanks for info.
Overall, the spec looks fine, but it's missing at least one BuildRequires: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6689180
Interesting that's not coming from my package. I've traced it back to a change in the testing library of python-sure and i've filed a bug against the package: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082400 I'll see what i can do to fix it upstream. The author is the same as the author of httpretty and he seems to have a habit of incorrectly packaging this for pypi.
I'm sorry that this bug has sat idle so long, particularly as it's starting to acquire blocks. I've decided to submit this for review without checks. There are simply too many problems i've found in the test cases upstream that cause transient failures. For the sake of a few: * A lot of interdependent state between tests, different test runners and versions can therefore fail. * Certain tests only work on the version upstream is pinning there testing to. * Time based tests that fail if the test started and finished over a second boundary. * Some further undiscovered interactions that would make tests fail about 1 in 4 I've tried putting some of this upstream in the past. For example I had fixes up to unpin all the requirements to get the latest dependencies testing and so it wasn't shipping version specific dependencies in PyPi. This was accepted after debate, only to have been quiety repinned later. Ideally i'd like for this to mean we don't package it at all, however there are now a number of dependencies and the library works in practice. SPEC: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~jamielennox/python-httpretty.spec SRPM: https://people.fedoraproject.org/~jamielennox/python-httpretty-0.8.3-1.fc20.src.rpm Hopefully i've sufficiently justified my position and we can get this packaged.
Quick spec look: > 0%{?fedora} > 12 Is that really necessary after almost ten releases? > Patch0: 0001-Replace-unicode-character-with-ASCII.patch > Patch1: 0002-Un-pin-requirements.patch Those should have comments and/or upstream links. > %package -n python3-httpretty > Summary: HTTP request mock tool for Python I'd suggest to change it to: HTTP request mock tool for Python 3 Also maybe drop a comment about missing %check section that links to your previous comment, or even better: keep the %check there but hide it by a condition.
Thanks. Modifications made, same links: SPEC: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~jamielennox/python-httpretty.spec SRPM: https://people.fedoraproject.org/~jamielennox/python-httpretty-0.8.3-1.fc20.src.rpm
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: 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 61440 bytes in 4 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 %doc. [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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist [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 [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [-]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Justified. [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-httpretty-0.8.3-1.fc20.noarch.rpm python3-httpretty-0.8.3-1.fc20.noarch.rpm python-httpretty-0.8.3-1.fc20.src.rpm python-httpretty.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python-urllib3 python3-httpretty.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python3-urllib3 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-httpretty python3-httpretty python-httpretty.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python-urllib3 python3-httpretty.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python3-urllib3 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' False alarms. Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/churchyard/rpmbuild/FedoraReview/1036755-python-httpretty/srpm/python-httpretty.spec 2014-07-29 11:52:02.304324103 +0200 +++ /home/churchyard/rpmbuild/FedoraReview/1036755-python-httpretty/srpm-unpacked/python-httpretty.spec 2014-07-29 04:06:48.000000000 +0200 @@ -15,6 +15,6 @@ Patch0: 0001-Replace-unicode-character-with-ASCII.patch -# Part of https://github.com/gabrielfalcao/HTTPretty/pull/180 -# however will likely still be needed for test-requirements in future. +# Part of https://github.com/gabrielfalcao/HTTPretty/pull/180 however will +# likely still be needed for test-requirements in future. Patch1: 0002-Un-pin-requirements.patch Requires -------- python-httpretty (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-urllib3 python3-httpretty (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-urllib3 Provides -------- python-httpretty: python-httpretty python3-httpretty: python3-httpretty Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/h/httpretty/httpretty-0.8.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 46472447ec9c1a1d81fcd8a0a7ce5cbd795f62b53e2485050e77c651afc61b43 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 46472447ec9c1a1d81fcd8a0a7ce5cbd795f62b53e2485050e77c651afc61b43 This package is APPROVED.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-httpretty Short Description: HTTP request mock tool for Python Upstream URL: http://falcao.it/HTTPretty/ Owners: jamielennox Branches: f19 f20 f21 epel7 InitialCC: apevec
Git done (by process-git-requests).
python-httpretty-0.8.3-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-httpretty-0.8.3-1.fc20
python-httpretty-0.8.3-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-httpretty-0.8.3-1.fc19
python-httpretty-0.8.3-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
python-httpretty-0.8.3-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
python-httpretty-0.8.3-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.