Spec URL: http://guaix.fis.ucm.es/~spr/fedora/python-patsy.spec SRPM URL: http://guaix.fis.ucm.es/~spr/fedora/python-patsy-0.2.1-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: A Python package for describing statistical models and for building design matrices. It is closely inspired by and compatible with the 'formula' mini-language used in R and S. Fedora Account System Username: sergiopr
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 2007040 bytes in 156 files. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation - License should be BSD or Python software license, if I am not wrong, see LICENSE.txt - please signal to upstrat to add COPYING file if they refer to it in the header ( not blocking for the review ) - rm -Rf %buildroot is not needed. Not blocking, but better be clean - the patch is IMHO useful for upstream, please send it and add the link to the PR in the spec ( not blocking ) ===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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. [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]: 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]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-patsy [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. [x]: 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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-patsy-0.2.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm python3-patsy-0.2.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm python-patsy-0.2.1-1.fc20.src.rpm python-patsy.src:74: W: macro-in-comment %{__python3} 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python3-patsy python-patsy 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python3-patsy (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-numpy python3-scipy python-patsy (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): numpy python(abi) python-pandas scipy Provides -------- python3-patsy: python3-patsy python-patsy: python-patsy Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/patsy/patsy-0.2.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 31374ce25275813d8f1c48bdda40bba06f7a16cce7dcdfad73f43a555393d065 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 31374ce25275813d8f1c48bdda40bba06f7a16cce7dcdfad73f43a555393d065 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (cf29f98) last change: 2013-02-08 Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 1051254 Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
(In reply to Michael Scherer from comment #1) > > Issues: > ======= > - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size > (~1MB) > or number of files. > Note: Documentation size is 2007040 bytes in 156 files. > See: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation I have created a doc subpackage > - License should be BSD or Python software license, if I am not wrong, > see LICENSE.txt As part of the code is under Python license and the rest is under BSD the license field is "BSD and Python". I have updated the license field. > - please signal to upstrat to add COPYING file if they refer to it in the > header > ( not blocking for the review ) Done, https://github.com/pydata/patsy/issues/33 > - rm -Rf %buildroot is not needed. Not blocking, but better be clean Done > - the patch is IMHO useful for upstream, please send it and add > the link to the PR in the spec ( not blocking ) I copied the fix from upstream, actually Spec URL: http://guaix.fis.ucm.es/~spr/fedora/python-patsy.spec SRPM URL: http://guaix.fis.ucm.es/~spr/fedora/python-patsy-0.2.1-2.fc21.src.rpm BTW, I proposed a review swap for this package in the devel list. So if you want me to review a package of yours or something you are interested in, just let me know
ok the points have been corrected, so the package is approved. And well, I started the review before seeing the offer, so feel free to take any review in the list :)
Great, thank you for the review
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-patsy Short Description: Describing statistical models in Python using symbolic formulas Owners: sergiopr Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).