Bug 1127914 - Review Request: python-jsonrpclib - JSON-RPC v2.0 client library for Python
Summary: Review Request: python-jsonrpclib - JSON-RPC v2.0 client library for Python
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Volker Fröhlich
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2014-08-07 20:04 UTC by Ihar Hrachyshka
Modified: 2014-09-15 13:58 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2014-09-15 13:58:19 UTC
volker27: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Ihar Hrachyshka 2014-08-07 20:04:09 UTC
Spec URL: https://ihrachyshka.fedorapeople.org/python-jsonrpclib.spec
SRPM URL: https://ihrachyshka.fedorapeople.org/python-jsonrpclib-0.1.3-1.fc20.src.rpm
Description: This project is an implementation of the JSON-RPC v2.0 specification (backwards-compatible) as a client library.
Fedora Account System Username: ihrachyshka

The package is needed by openstack-neutron to unbreak its Arista networking plugin.

Comment 1 Volker Fröhlich 2014-08-08 16:37:28 UTC
Remove rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT! It's not necessary in Fedora.

I would suggest the more specific

%{python_sitelib}/%{srcname}/ and an additional line for egg-info

instead of


Use %{__python2} instead of %{__python}.

None of these are blockers, thus this package is APPROVED.

The following are just remarks:

"%doc LICENSE.txt README.txt" is also valid, if you like.

As you used %{srcname} rather aggressively, you may want to use it in "Name" too.

I noticed the release is 3 years old. The project might be dead.

Does it work in Python 3?

Package Review

[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

===== MUST items =====

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[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", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 5 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/makerpm/1127914
[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.
[-]: 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 20480 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
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

[-]: 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 =====

[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: 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.

The module can be imported.

[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
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[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
[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 =====

[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Checking: python-jsonrpclib-0.1.3-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
# rpmlint python-jsonrpclib
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'

python-jsonrpclib (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


Source checksums
https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/j/jsonrpclib/jsonrpclib-0.1.3.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : a594e702c35408ae5540086ab5bdea284fb27d09520898c381c5bbdbfceffbba
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a594e702c35408ae5540086ab5bdea284fb27d09520898c381c5bbdbfceffbba

Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1127914
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

Comment 2 Christopher Meng 2014-08-09 10:05:55 UTC
python_sitelib -> python2_sitelib.

Comment 3 Ihar Hrachyshka 2014-08-11 15:00:32 UTC
Updated spec to reflect comments:

Spec URL: https://ihrachyshka.fedorapeople.org/python-jsonrpclib.spec
SRPM URL: https://ihrachyshka.fedorapeople.org/python-jsonrpclib-0.1.3-1.fc20.src.rpm

Comment 4 Ihar Hrachyshka 2014-08-13 10:28:06 UTC
New Package SCM Request
Package Name: python-jsonrpclib
Short Description: JSON-RPC v2.0 client library for Python
Upstream URL: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/jsonrpclib
Owners: ihrachyshka
Branches: f21 el6 epel7

Comment 5 Gwyn Ciesla 2014-08-13 11:08:23 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

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