Spec URL: http://athmane.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/python-fudge.spec SRPM URL: http://athmane.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/python-fudge-1.0.3-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Fudge is a Python module for using fake objects (mocks and stubs) to test real ones. Fedora Account System Username: athmane
Rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-fudge.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint python-fudge-1.0.3-1.fc20.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint python-fudge-1.0.3-1.fc20.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Built correctly with mock (f21 rawhide) NB. I need this package to run the test suite of Fabric (another pkg I maintain)
I will take it.
Sorry for the delay in review. Please take a look below - Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel ===== 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 34 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mukundan/personal/pkgs/reviews/1076825-python- fudge/licensecheck.txt ---> Looks fine. [x]: 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. [x]: 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 10240 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: No rpmlint messages. [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. [?]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python ---> BuildRequires does not have [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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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-fudge-1.0.3-1.fc21.noarch.rpm python-fudge-1.0.3-1.fc21.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-fudge 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python-fudge (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python-fudge: python-fudge Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/f/fudge/fudge-1.0.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f8c8bfb3c0199dd06108c0c5a80e3645c7a071e0917b1a3bc73c761800809251 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f8c8bfb3c0199dd06108c0c5a80e3645c7a071e0917b1a3bc73c761800809251 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1076825 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-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
Thank you for reviewing this package. (In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #3) > Sorry for the delay in review. Please take a look below - > .... > [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python > > ---> BuildRequires does not have > .... It seems that the message was truncated, I'm guessing that I need to specify which version of python should be used (python2 vs. python3) Is this assumption correct ?
Sorry! Copy paste bungled! :) Yes, that's correct. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires
Thank you for your feedback, here's a new one: SPEC: http://athmane.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/python-fudge.spec SRPM: http://athmane.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/python-fudge-1.0.3-2.fc20.src.rpm %changelog * Sun Mar 30 2014 Athmane Madjoudj <athmane> 1.0.3-2 - Specify python version in the build requirement - Remove unused macros - Enable the test suite
With more strict python2 macros: SPEC: http://athmane.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/python-fudge.spec SRPM: http://athmane.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/python-fudge-1.0.3-3.fc20.src.rpm
Looks like this package also supports python 3. Why not build for python 3 as well?
Will do that although at this time, I only need python2 package since Fabric is not yet ported to python3
Very well then! I do not see issues. Package APPROVED. 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 34 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mukundan/personal/pkgs/reviews/1076825-python- fudge/licensecheck.txt ---> This is fine. [x]: 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 10240 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 [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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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. ---> koji scratch build looks good. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6693115 [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-fudge-1.0.3-3.fc21.noarch.rpm python-fudge-1.0.3-3.fc21.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-fudge 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python-fudge (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python-fudge: python-fudge Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/f/fudge/fudge-1.0.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f8c8bfb3c0199dd06108c0c5a80e3645c7a071e0917b1a3bc73c761800809251 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f8c8bfb3c0199dd06108c0c5a80e3645c7a071e0917b1a3bc73c761800809251 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1076825 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-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
Mukundan, thanks a lot for the review.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-fudge Short Description: A Python module for using fake objects (mocks and stubs) to test real ones Owners: athmane Branches: f19 f20 el6 epel7 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
python-fudge-1.0.3-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-fudge-1.0.3-3.fc20
python-fudge-1.0.3-3.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-fudge-1.0.3-3.fc19
python-fudge-1.0.3-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
python-fudge-1.0.3-3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
python-fudge-1.0.3-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.