Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/stpierre/specfiles/master/python-moto.spec SRPM URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/fafcwmw0xmr5yhj/python-moto-0.2.21-1.src.rpm Description: Moto is a library that allows your python tests to easily mock out the boto library. Fedora Account System Username: cstpierre Successful Koji builds: Rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6704524 EPEL 6: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6704684
Updated SRPM for moto 0.3.1: https://www.dropbox.com/s/bo3a5ap44cpbpfu/python-moto-0.3.1-1.src.rpm Specfile URL is the same. Successful Koji build for EPEL 6: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6864869
This is unofficial review of the package First of all, please don't use the link generated from dropbox, as fedora-review that creates an automatic review is not handling the link in the proper way. If you plan to do packaging in a regular way, consider getting a page on fedorapeople: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/fedorapeople.org Also, SPEC file version does not match the actual SRPM. Don't forget the changelog. Differences exists between the published SPEC and the one in the SRPM. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines - Dist tag is present. - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Check did not completechecksum differs and there are problems running diff. Please verify manually. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL - 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. Note: License file LICENSE is marked as %doc instead of %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ===== 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". 112 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gpaterno/reviews/review- python-moto/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 30720 bytes in 3 files. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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]: 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 does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [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: [ ]: 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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [!]: 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) Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.2.12 starting (python version = 3.4.2)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled yum cache Start: cleaning yum metadata Finish: cleaning yum metadata INFO: enabled ccache Mock Version: 1.2.12 INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.12 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/gpaterno/reviews/review-python-moto/results/python-moto-0.3.1-1.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # /usr/bin/yum-deprecated --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-22-x86_64/root/ --releasever 22 install /home/gpaterno/reviews/review-python-moto/results/python-moto-0.3.1-1.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts
Reopen with an updated package if you are still interested.