Bug 1089392 - Review Request: python-watchdog - Filesystem events monitoring
Summary: Review Request: python-watchdog - Filesystem events monitoring
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Antonio T. (sagitter)
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2014-04-18 16:26 UTC by Pierre-YvesChibon
Modified: 2014-12-30 03:59 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version: python-watchdog-0.8.2-1.fc20
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2014-12-06 10:29:21 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
anto.trande: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Pierre-YvesChibon 2014-04-18 16:26:27 UTC
Spec URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org//python-watchdog.spec
SRPM URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org//python-watchdog-0.7.1-1.fc20.src.rpm

Description:
A Python API and shell utilities to monitor file system events.

Comment 1 Pierre-YvesChibon 2014-04-18 16:26:32 UTC
This package built on koji:  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6754142

Comment 2 Volker Fröhlich 2014-04-18 16:35:04 UTC
Please add your FAS user name on review requests.

As Fedora 12 is unmaintained, the first conditional serves no purpose anymore. The version constraints on the BuildRequires are probably fulfilled anyway and thus not necessary.

Comment 3 Pierre-YvesChibon 2014-04-18 16:40:11 UTC
With a clean(er) rpmlint:

Spec URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org//python-watchdog.spec
SRPM URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org//python-watchdog-0.7.1-2.fc20.src.rpm

Comment 4 Pierre-YvesChibon 2014-04-18 16:45:44 UTC
(In reply to Volker Fröhlich from comment #2)
> Please add your FAS user name on review requests.

It's in my email and I don't quite see why you need to for a review? If I was looking for a sponsor, I guess I would just sponsor myself :)

> As Fedora 12 is unmaintained, the first conditional serves no purpose
> anymore. The version constraints on the BuildRequires are probably fulfilled
> anyway and thus not necessary.

True, but I'm gonna keep it in for the moment, but I should expand it for EL6 check

Comment 5 Pierre-YvesChibon 2014-04-18 16:48:14 UTC
With the proper Fedora/RHEL version check for py3:

Spec URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org//python-watchdog.spec
SRPM URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org//python-watchdog-0.7.1-3.fc20.src.rpm

Comment 6 Antonio T. (sagitter) 2014-04-25 12:58:13 UTC
1- There are files released with other licenses and packaged:

BSD (3 clause)
--------------
watchdog-0.7.1/%{py3dir}/src/watchdog/observers/winapi.py
watchdog-0.7.1/src/watchdog/observers/winapi.py

MIT/X11 (BSD like)
------------------
watchdog-0.7.1/%{py3dir}/src/watchdog/utils/importlib2.py
watchdog-0.7.1/%{py3dir}/src/watchdog/utils/unicode_paths.py
watchdog-0.7.1/src/watchdog/utils/importlib2.py
watchdog-0.7.1/src/watchdog/utils/unicode_paths.py

Please, fix License tag

2- Be silent 'macro-in-comment' warnings which come from %check section. 

3- 'python-pytest-cov' is not in EPEL6, so your package can't be built. 


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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "Apache (v2.0)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated", "BSD (3
     clause)". 16 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
     in /home/sagitter/1089392-python-watchdog/licensecheck.txt
[x]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[ ]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     python3-watchdog
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python-watchdog-0.7.1-3.fc21.noarch.rpm
          python3-watchdog-0.7.1-3.fc21.noarch.rpm
          python-watchdog-0.7.1-3.fc21.src.rpm
python-watchdog.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary watchmedo
python3-watchdog.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Filesystem -> File system, File-system, Systemically
python3-watchdog.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary watchmedo-py3
python-watchdog.src:86: W: macro-in-comment %{__python2}
python-watchdog.src:88: W: macro-in-comment %{py3dir}
python-watchdog.src:89: W: macro-in-comment %{__python3}
python-watchdog.src:91: W: macro-in-comment %endif
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint python-watchdog python3-watchdog
python-watchdog.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary watchmedo
python3-watchdog.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Filesystem -> File system, File-system, Systemically
python3-watchdog.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary watchmedo-py3
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
python-watchdog (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python2
    python(abi)

python3-watchdog (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)



Provides
--------
python-watchdog:
    python-watchdog

python3-watchdog:
    python3-watchdog



Source checksums
----------------
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/w/watchdog/watchdog-0.7.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 54ca64fdf0a2fb23cecba6349f9587e62fd31840ae22a71898a65adb8c6b52f9
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 54ca64fdf0a2fb23cecba6349f9587e62fd31840ae22a71898a65adb8c6b52f9


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-i386 -b 1089392
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386
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

Comment 7 Pierre-YvesChibon 2014-04-25 15:43:47 UTC
Spec URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org//python-watchdog.spec
SRPM URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org//python-watchdog-0.7.1-4.fc20.src.rpm

I updated the license tag.

I won't ask for the EL6 branch now and will make sure to coordinate with the maintainer of python-pytest-cov if I need the el6 branch.

Hopefully in the future the %check section will be un-commented out and will actually be used :)


Thanks for the review!

Comment 8 Antonio T. (sagitter) 2014-04-25 16:00:04 UTC
(In reply to Pierre-YvesChibon from comment #7)
> 
> Hopefully in the future the %check section will be un-commented out and will
> actually be used :)
> 

In the meantime, you may avoid to expand unused macros

#%%{__python2} setup.py test
#%%if 0%%{?with_python3}
#pushd %%{py3dir}
#%%{__python3} setup.py test
#popd
#%%endif

or removing the %check section completely.

> Spec URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org//python-watchdog.spec
> SRPM URL:
> http://pingou.fedorapeople.org//python-watchdog-0.7.1-4.fc20.src.rpm

Package approved.

Comment 9 Pierre-YvesChibon 2014-04-25 16:18:06 UTC
Thanks for the review!

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: python-watchdog
Short Description: Filesystem events monitoring
Owners: pingou
Branches: F20, devel
InitialCC:

Comment 10 Gwyn Ciesla 2014-04-25 16:43:57 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2014-11-22 22:20:21 UTC
python-watchdog-0.8.2-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-watchdog-0.8.2-1.fc20

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2014-11-22 22:20:28 UTC
python-watchdog-0.8.2-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-watchdog-0.8.2-1.fc21

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2014-11-24 20:57:50 UTC
Package python-watchdog-0.8.2-1.fc21:
* should fix your issue,
* was pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository,
* should be available at your local mirror within two days.
Update it with:
# su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing python-watchdog-0.8.2-1.fc21'
as soon as you are able to.
Please go to the following url:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-15641/python-watchdog-0.8.2-1.fc21
then log in and leave karma (feedback).

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2014-12-06 10:29:21 UTC
python-watchdog-0.8.2-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2014-12-30 03:59:24 UTC
python-watchdog-0.8.2-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.