Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/stpierre/specfiles/master/python-dicttoxml.spec SRPM URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/vxbvkc3qtnaoz3h/python-dicttoxml-1.3.1-1.src.rpm Description: Converts a Python dictionary or other native data type into a valid XML string. This is required for moto, the boto mocking library. Fedora Account System Username: cstpierre Successful Koji builds: F20: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6704396 Rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6704420 EPEL 6: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6704447
I don't know if there is official policy on this (I didn't find any), but it seems like the license under which dicttoxml is under should be present in the upstream release tarball instead of an additional link. I'm sure it's highly unlikely, but it might be possible for upstream to change the license to something fedora-incompatible while the external link points to the old version... Just a thought.
Rpmlint gives the following, these should be addressed: python-dicttoxml.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bool -> biol, boil, book python-dicttoxml.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US str -> st, tr, stir python-dicttoxml.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unicode -> Unicode, uni code, uni-code python-dicttoxml.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datetime -> date time, date-time, daytime python-dicttoxml.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tuple -> tulle, duple, letup python-dicttoxml.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iterable -> alterable, tolerable, iterate python-dicttoxml.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/dicttoxml.py 0644L /usr/bin/env 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings.
Here's the rpmlint output for the source packages: Checking: python-dicttoxml-1.3.1-1.noarch.rpm python-dicttoxml-1.3.1-1.src.rpm python-dicttoxml.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bool -> biol, boil, book python-dicttoxml.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US str -> st, tr,stir python-dicttoxml.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unicode -> Unicode, uni code, uni-code python-dicttoxml.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datetime -> date time, date-time, daytime python-dicttoxml.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tuple -> tulle, duple, letup python-dicttoxml.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iterable -> alterable, tolerable, iterate python-dicttoxml.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/dicttoxml.py 0644L /usr/bin/env python-dicttoxml.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bool -> biol, boil, book python-dicttoxml.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US str -> st, tr, stir python-dicttoxml.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unicode -> Unicode, uni code, uni-code python-dicttoxml.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datetime -> date time, date-time, daytime python-dicttoxml.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tuple -> tulle, duple, letup python-dicttoxml.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iterable -> alterable, tolerable, iterate 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 12 warnings.
Here is the full output of fedora-review. I think the dist-tag failure is a false-positive based on what I've read (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DistTag) 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: [ ]: 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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/vagrant/1084199-python-dicttoxml/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 files. [ ]: 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: [ ]: 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 [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [ ]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [ ]: 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). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-dicttoxml-1.3.1-1.noarch.rpm python-dicttoxml-1.3.1-1.src.rpm python-dicttoxml.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bool -> biol, boil, book python-dicttoxml.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US str -> st, tr, stir python-dicttoxml.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unicode -> Unicode, uni code, uni-code python-dicttoxml.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datetime -> date time, date-time, daytime python-dicttoxml.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tuple -> tulle, duple, letup python-dicttoxml.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iterable -> alterable, tolerable, iterate python-dicttoxml.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/dicttoxml.py 0644L /usr/bin/env python-dicttoxml.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bool -> biol, boil, book python-dicttoxml.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US str -> st, tr, stir python-dicttoxml.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unicode -> Unicode, uni code, uni-code python-dicttoxml.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datetime -> date time, date-time, daytime python-dicttoxml.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tuple -> tulle, duple, letup python-dicttoxml.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iterable -> alterable, tolerable, iterate 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 12 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-dicttoxml python-dicttoxml.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bool -> biol, boil, book python-dicttoxml.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US str -> st, tr, stir python-dicttoxml.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unicode -> Unicode, uni code, uni-code python-dicttoxml.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datetime -> date time, date-time, daytime python-dicttoxml.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tuple -> tulle, duple, letup python-dicttoxml.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iterable -> alterable, tolerable, iterate python-dicttoxml.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/dicttoxml.py 0644L /usr/bin/env 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python-dicttoxml (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python-dicttoxml: python-dicttoxml Source checksums ---------------- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/quandyfactory/dicttoxml/master/LICENCE.txt : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4514114bd9da0b2fbf8c4fa264c0e6cc80fd41e6ac7f09d7a39a215662951c7c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4514114bd9da0b2fbf8c4fa264c0e6cc80fd41e6ac7f09d7a39a215662951c7c https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/d/dicttoxml/dicttoxml-1.3.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 355dd621d8f65a13122eea438c3c82c56b10cd73b18ab9bbad1eb57ede606d4e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 355dd621d8f65a13122eea438c3c82c56b10cd73b18ab9bbad1eb57ede606d4e https://raw.githubusercontent.com/quandyfactory/dicttoxml/master/README.markdown : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 254f7fa9f01bf8aaaaeabf839538bb4e1512a996805dcf85a6cc5358dc10b4d7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 254f7fa9f01bf8aaaaeabf839538bb4e1512a996805dcf85a6cc5358dc10b4d7 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -b 1084199 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
The "spelling errors" are all the names of Python types. Is there some way to tell rpmlint not to flag them as errors? 'Cause they're not. :) /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/dicttoxml.py doesn't need to be executable, since it's a library, not a script as such. The majority of /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/*.py files appear to not be executable, either, so I think that's a false positive. I submitted an issue about inclusion of LICENCE.txt in the tarball itself, and I've added a comment about it to the specfile.
License and readme added to the upstream tarball; specfile and SRPM updated: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/stpierre/specfiles/master/python-dicttoxml.spec https://www.dropbox.com/s/om7nojmn52f2xyb/python-dicttoxml-1.3.7-1.src.rpm
The dropbox link above has expired. Can you please post another link to the SRPM so it can be reviewed?
We'll that's annoying. Sorry. Re-sharing it generates the same link, so presumably it should work now: https://www.dropbox.com/s/om7nojmn52f2xyb/python-dicttoxml-1.3.7-1.src.rpm
Any update here? Can I take the review?
Hi, there are some updated in Python Packaging: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_spec_file Please: 1- Update to last upstream relase dicttoxml-1.6.6 2- Look like there is Python 3 support, please use Python3 so this will become the default python in Fedora. 3- There is %license macro if are goint to epel you need to define it with: %{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc} %license LICENCE.tx 4- Check if Python2 if suported, if it is suported you will need to ship both python2 and python3 as subpackages and you must add a Provides: python2-foo 5- There is new Python macros: %py2_build %py3_build %py2_install %py3_install
I've long since changed jobs in the 16 months since first submitting this, so I no longer have a need for this package. If someone else wants to take it over that'd be fine.