Spec URL: https://apevec.fedorapeople.org/python-oslotest.spec SRPM URL: https://apevec.fedorapeople.org/python-oslotest-1.1.0-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: OpenStack test framework and test fixtures. Fedora Account System Username: apevec
Few fixes: * %files should just include %{_bindir}/oslo_debug_helper.sh, %{_bindir} will conflict with base filesystem package by giving ownership or /usr/bin * Should requires: python-six, python-testtools, python-mock, python-mox (depending which modules is used, one of them could be required)
Thanks for the review. I've added: Requires: python-testrepository which pulls in: python-fixtures python-subunit python-testtools Not sure about python-mox, requirements.txt has mox3>=0.7.0 and library does in __init__ six.add_move(six.MovedModule('mox', 'mox3.mox', 'mox3.mox')) so it realy wants mox3 which is not packaged in Fedora? Spec URL: https://apevec.fedorapeople.org/python-oslotest.spec SRPM URL: https://apevec.fedorapeople.org/python-oslotest-1.1.0-2.fc22.src.rpm Description: OpenStack test framework and test fixtures. Fedora Account System Username: apevec
Ok for the requirements changes, as for python-mox, I admit it is weird, but it should just work with the mox module packaged in Fedora. As for now, this packages complies with Fedora Packaging Guidelines, so I hereby approve it into Fedora Packages Collection. Please submit a scm request. 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/haikel/1154650-python-oslotest/licensecheck.txt [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 296960 bytes in 42 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. [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: [-]: 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. [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-oslotest-1.1.0-2.fc22.noarch.rpm python-oslotest-1.1.0-2.fc22.src.rpm python-oslotest.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python-oslotest/html/_static/jquery.js python-oslotest.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary oslo_debug_helper.sh 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-oslotest python-oslotest.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python-oslotest/html/_static/jquery.js python-oslotest.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary oslo_debug_helper.sh 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python-oslotest (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash python(abi) python-mock python-mox python-six python-testrepository python-testscenarios Provides -------- python-oslotest: python-oslotest Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/o/oslotest/oslotest-1.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 29b2380041f4f7632ed3368ac537beb2be869db44104d92c69f7a945a8253d9f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 29b2380041f4f7632ed3368ac537beb2be869db44104d92c69f7a945a8253d9f
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-oslotest Short Description: OpenStack test framework Upstream URL: http://launchpad.net/oslo Owners: apevec Branches: f21 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Just to let you know, I'm working on packaging mox3.
> working on packaging mox3 Abandoned package review was bug 1174974
I'll need to review mox3 review, oslotest is broken without that package.
*revive*
Also it would be great if you package this also for Python 3 if possible (and from the usage of six, I guess this is supposed to work with both Python 3 and Python 2.
social's scratch build of openstack-puppet-modules?#db4e135626252ebf0b23b8a0e6e98ce0dcf2f9e6 for git://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/openstack-puppet-modules?#db4e135626252ebf0b23b8a0e6e98ce0dcf2f9e6 and rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11426591