Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python3-random2/python3-random2.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python3-random2/python3-random2-1.0.1-1.fc21.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: This package provides a Python 3 ported version of Python 2.7's random module. It has also been back-ported to work in Python 2.6. In Python 3, the implementation of randrange() was changed, so that even with the same seed you get different sequences in Python 2 and 3. Note that several high-level functions such as randint() and choice() use randrange().
It turns out that even the python 2 version adds some keyword arguments to some of the random functions, and that the ZODB test suite uses those keyword arguments. Since we need both python 2 and python 3 versions of this package after all, I am changing the name of the package and the bug. New URLs: Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-random2/python-random2.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-random2/python-random2-1.0.1-1.fc21.src.rpm
I'm not an official reviewer, but I'll try and help out where I can. I almost wish there was something to say here: * the only things found by rpmlint are 2 lines it thinks are misspellings in the long description Checking: python-random2-1.0.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm python3-random2-1.0.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm python-random2-1.0.1-1.fc20.src.rpm python-random2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US randrange -> rand range, rand-range, hydrangea python-random2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US randint -> ran dint, ran-dint, rand int python3-random2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US randrange -> rand range, rand-range, hydrangea python3-random2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US randint -> ran dint, ran-dint, rand int python-random2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US randrange -> rand range, rand-range, hydrangea python-random2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US randint -> ran dint, ran-dint, rand int 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. * source matches as expected * there are no other dependencies to confirm * py3 check logic in the spec file looks good the rpms build cleanly on my fedora 20 test machine and both the py2 and py3 packages look good to me (i did a simple import and dir() of the root module since I'm not an expert in this subject. Question: The spec file denotes the Python license used for distribution. I know that's a valid license, but I'm not sure what the requirements are but I think at least a refrence to the license at FSF or similar?
Thanks for the unofficial review, Jamie. More eyes are always helpful. Those misspellings in the long description are actually the names of python functions, so they are not misspelled after all. As for the license, there actually is no requirement to include anything if upstream did not, as in this case. See the paragraph immediately above "Subpackage licensing" here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text.
Let me take this. I will review this at the earliest tomorrow evening. If someone wants to take, feel free to assign the bug to yourself.
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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mukundan/personal/pkgs/reviews/1104322-python- random2/licensecheck.txt ---> This is fine. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. ---> License file not included in the upstream archive. PKG-INFO file mentions the license for the package as does the upstream webpage. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.4/site- packages/__pycache__(python3-setuptools, python3-libs) [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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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: [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-random2 [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-random2-1.0.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm python3-random2-1.0.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm python-random2-1.0.1-1.fc22.src.rpm python-random2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US randrange -> rand range, rand-range, hydrangea python-random2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US randint -> ran dint, ran-dint, rand int python3-random2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US randrange -> rand range, rand-range, hydrangea python3-random2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US randint -> ran dint, ran-dint, rand int python-random2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US randrange -> rand range, rand-range, hydrangea python-random2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US randint -> ran dint, ran-dint, rand int 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python3-random2 python-random2 python3-random2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US randrange -> rand range, rand-range, hydrangea python3-random2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US randint -> ran dint, ran-dint, rand int python-random2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US randrange -> rand range, rand-range, hydrangea python-random2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US randint -> ran dint, ran-dint, rand int 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python3-random2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-random2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-random2: python3-random2 python-random2: python-random2 Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/r/random2/random2-1.0.1.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 34ad30aac341039872401595df9ab2c9dc36d0b7c077db1cea9ade430ed1c007 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 34ad30aac341039872401595df9ab2c9dc36d0b7c077db1cea9ade430ed1c007 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1104322 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
I don't think I have anything to complain. Package APPROVED.
Thank you very much for the review, Mukundan!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-random2 Short Description: Python 2 compatible random module Upstream URL: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/random2 Owners: jjames Branches: f21 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
This has been built for Rawhide and F21.