Bug 1166919 - Review Request: python-fastcache - C implementation of python3 lru_cache
Summary: Review Request: python-fastcache - C implementation of python3 lru_cache
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Antonio T. (sagitter)
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2014-11-21 23:45 UTC by Jerry James
Modified: 2015-05-27 16:50 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version: python-fastcache-1.0.2-2.fc21
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2014-12-13 09:57:23 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
anto.trande: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jerry James 2014-11-21 23:45:37 UTC
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-fastcache/python-fastcache.spec
SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-fastcache/python-fastcache-1.0.2-1.fc22.src.rpm
Fedora Account System Username: jjames
Description: This package contains a C implementation of the python 3 lru_cache.  It passes all tests in the standard library for functools.lru_cache.

This package is a new dependency of the sympy package.

Comment 1 Miroslav Suchý 2014-11-24 23:19:13 UTC
I believe that:
  %if 0%{?fedora} >= 12 || 0%{?rhel} >= 8
should be:
  %if 0%{?fedora} >= 21 || 0%{?rhel} >= 8
Correct?

And this:
  %doc %{pkgname}-%{version}/CHANGELOG %{pkgname}-%{version}/README.md
  %license %{pkgname}-%{version}/LICENSE
should be:
  %doc CHANGELOG README.md LICENSE
There is no macro %license and if you omit path, rpmbuild put it into correct directory automatically.

Otherwise looks good to me.

Comment 2 Miroslav Suchý 2014-11-24 23:31:49 UTC
Sorry just learn about %license. But anyway - it should be:
%doc CHANGELOG README.md
%license LICENSE

Comment 3 Jerry James 2014-11-25 14:58:59 UTC
(In reply to Miroslav Suchý from comment #1)
> I believe that:
>   %if 0%{?fedora} >= 12 || 0%{?rhel} >= 8
> should be:
>   %if 0%{?fedora} >= 21 || 0%{?rhel} >= 8
> Correct?

I had a reviewer of a previous python package insist that I put that at the top, because Fedora first introduced python 3 in F-12, and RHEL is expected to add python 3 in the next release (RHEL 8).  It doesn't really matter to me.  I do not intend to submit this package to EPEL, but added that in case somebody else wants to do so.  If I was smart enough to figure out how to make the conditional read "This is either Fedora, or it is RHEL and the RHEL version is 8 or higher," I would do that instead and drop the 12 altogether.  But I'm not quite sure how to do that.

(In reply to Miroslav Suchý from comment #2)
> Sorry just learn about %license. But anyway - it should be:
> %doc CHANGELOG README.md
> %license LICENSE

No, the spec file is correct as it is written.  The paths for these files refers to the source path (i.e., where the files are located at RPM creation time), not where they will be in the final package.

Comment 4 Miroslav Suchý 2014-11-25 17:29:20 UTC
> I had a reviewer of a previous python package insist that I put that at the
> top, because Fedora first introduced python 3 in F-12,

Aha.

> If I was smart enough to figure out how to make the conditional read "This is either Fedora, or it is RHEL and the RHEL version is 8 or higher," I would do that instead and drop the 12 altogether.  But I'm not quite sure how to do that.

In that case it should be:
  %if 0%{?fedora} || 0%{?rhel} >= 8

Comment 5 Jerry James 2014-12-01 18:27:05 UTC
Thanks.  I have made that change to the spec file.

Comment 6 Antonio T. (sagitter) 2014-12-01 21:14:45 UTC
- LICENSE file is correctly tagged with %license macro
  (New change from F21).

- I would list all BR of python3 package among python3-%{pkgname} definitions.

- %{python2_sitearch}/%{pkgname} and %{python3_sitearch}/%{pkgname}
  %{python2_sitearch}/*.egg-info and %{python3_sitearch}/*.egg-info 
  not explicitely listed. 
  
  %{python2_sitearch}/%{pkgname}* is too recapitulatory in my opinion.

- Tests seem mute and maybe they are not started at all. 
  Use a verbose py.test command; something like this

%check
# Python 2 tests
pushd %{pkgname}-%{version}
py.cleanup-2.7 -p
export PYTHONPATH=build/lib.linux-%{_arch}-2.7/fastcache/tests
py.test-2.7 -v --ignore=fastcache/tests
popd

%if 0%{?with_py3}
# Python 3 tests
pushd python3-%{pkgname}-%{version}
py.cleanup-3.4 -p
export PYTHONPATH=build/lib.linux-%{_arch}-3.4/fastcache/tests
py.test-3.4 -v --ignore=fastcache/tests
popd
%endif

- /usr/share/licenses must not be owned by this package.
  False positive.

Package Review
==============

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


Issues:
=======
- 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.
  Note: Cannot find LICENSE in rpm(s)
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text


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

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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:
     "Unknown or generated". 20 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1166919-python-fastcache/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/licenses
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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.
[!]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
     Note: Test run failed
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Test run failed
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
     Note: Test run failed
[!]: 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 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.

Python:
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
     Note: Test run failed
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
     Note: Test run failed
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
     Note: Test run failed
[!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
     Note: Test run failed
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel

===== 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-fastcache
[ ]: 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.
[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:
[-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
     Note: Test run failed
[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-fastcache-1.0.2-1.fc22.i686.rpm
          python3-fastcache-1.0.2-1.fc22.i686.rpm
          python-fastcache-1.0.2-1.fc22.src.rpm
python-fastcache.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) lru -> Lr
python-fastcache.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lru -> Lr
python-fastcache.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US functools -> functions
python3-fastcache.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lru -> Lr
python3-fastcache.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US functools -> functions
python-fastcache.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) lru -> Lr
python-fastcache.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lru -> Lr
python-fastcache.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US functools -> functions
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root@localhost /]# rpmlint python-fastcache python3-fastcache
python-fastcache.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) lru -> URL
python-fastcache.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lru -> URL
python-fastcache.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US functools -> functions
python3-fastcache.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lru -> URL
python3-fastcache.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US functools -> functions
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root@localhost /]# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
python-fastcache (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6
    libpthread.so.0
    libpython2.7.so.1.0
    python(abi)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

python3-fastcache (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6
    libpthread.so.0
    libpython3.4m.so.1.0
    python(abi)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
python-fastcache:
    python-fastcache
    python-fastcache(x86-32)

python3-fastcache:
    python3-fastcache
    python3-fastcache(x86-32)



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
python-fastcache: /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/fastcache/_lrucache.so
python3-fastcache: /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/fastcache/_lrucache.cpython-34m.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/pbrady/fastcache/archive/v1.0.2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : e672f1bb75efeb5d829f8b6cb3f1f3e035dae92567eb5eb2fbc73bf260ebdf7e
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e672f1bb75efeb5d829f8b6cb3f1f3e035dae92567eb5eb2fbc73bf260ebdf7e


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-i386 -b 1166919
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

Comment 7 Jerry James 2014-12-02 00:31:45 UTC
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #6)
> - I would list all BR of python3 package among python3-%{pkgname}
> definitions.

This is a stylistic issue, and I prefer the way I have it.  (I can look at the spec file and see all of the BuildRequires in one place, no need to search.)

> - %{python2_sitearch}/%{pkgname} and %{python3_sitearch}/%{pkgname}
>   %{python2_sitearch}/*.egg-info and %{python3_sitearch}/*.egg-info 
>   not explicitely listed. 
>   
>   %{python2_sitearch}/%{pkgname}* is too recapitulatory in my opinion.

Okay, changed.

> - Tests seem mute and maybe they are not started at all. 
>   Use a verbose py.test command; something like this

Thanks for the tip.  I have taken your suggested approach.

New URLs:
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-fastcache/python-fastcache.spec
SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-fastcache/python-fastcache-1.0.2-2.fc22.src.rpm

Comment 8 Antonio T. (sagitter) 2014-12-03 13:50:30 UTC
- LICENSE file is correctly tagged with %license macro
  (New change from F21).

- /usr/share/licenses must not be owned by this package.
  False positive.

Package Review
==============

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


Issues:
=======
- 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.
  Note: Cannot find LICENSE in rpm(s)
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text


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

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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:
     "Unknown or generated". 20 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1166919-python-fastcache/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/licenses
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
     Note: Test run failed
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Test run failed
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
     Note: Test run failed
[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 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.

Python:
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
     Note: Test run failed
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
     Note: Test run failed
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
     Note: Test run failed
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
     Note: Test run failed
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel

===== 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-fastcache
[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.
[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:
[-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
     Note: Test run failed
[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-fastcache-1.0.2-2.fc22.x86_64.rpm
          python3-fastcache-1.0.2-2.fc22.x86_64.rpm
          python-fastcache-1.0.2-2.fc22.src.rpm
python-fastcache.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) lru -> Lr
python-fastcache.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lru -> Lr
python-fastcache.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US functools -> functions
python3-fastcache.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lru -> Lr
python3-fastcache.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US functools -> functions
python-fastcache.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) lru -> Lr
python-fastcache.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lru -> Lr
python-fastcache.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US functools -> functions
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root@localhost /]# rpmlint python-fastcache python3-fastcache
python-fastcache.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) lru -> URL
python-fastcache.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lru -> URL
python-fastcache.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US functools -> functions
python3-fastcache.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lru -> URL
python3-fastcache.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US functools -> functions
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root@localhost /]# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
python-fastcache (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    libpython2.7.so.1.0()(64bit)
    python(abi)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

python3-fastcache (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    libpython3.4m.so.1.0()(64bit)
    python(abi)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
python-fastcache:
    python-fastcache
    python-fastcache(x86-64)

python3-fastcache:
    python3-fastcache
    python3-fastcache(x86-64)



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
python-fastcache: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/fastcache/_lrucache.so
python3-fastcache: /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/fastcache/_lrucache.cpython-34m.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/pbrady/fastcache/archive/v1.0.2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : e672f1bb75efeb5d829f8b6cb3f1f3e035dae92567eb5eb2fbc73bf260ebdf7e
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e672f1bb75efeb5d829f8b6cb3f1f3e035dae92567eb5eb2fbc73bf260ebdf7e


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 1166919
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

Comment 9 Jerry James 2014-12-03 15:25:36 UTC
Thank you for the review!

Comment 10 Jerry James 2014-12-03 15:26:57 UTC
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: python-fastcache
Short Description: C implementation of python3 lru_cache
Upstream URL: https://github.com/pbrady/fastcache
Owners: jjames
Branches: f21
InitialCC:

Comment 11 Gwyn Ciesla 2014-12-03 18:39:59 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2014-12-03 19:32:23 UTC
python-fastcache-1.0.2-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-fastcache-1.0.2-2.fc21

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2014-12-05 00:47:58 UTC
python-fastcache-1.0.2-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository.

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2014-12-13 09:57:23 UTC
python-fastcache-1.0.2-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.

Comment 15 Orion Poplawski 2015-05-21 16:52:26 UTC
Jerry - would you be willing to maintain this in epel7?

Comment 16 Jerry James 2015-05-26 03:18:51 UTC
I'm not really interested in maintaining epel packages, although I wouldn't mind at all if someone else would like to do so.

Comment 17 Orion Poplawski 2015-05-26 14:41:19 UTC
Thanks for the response.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: python-fastcache
New Branches: epel7
Owners: orion
InitialCC:

Comment 18 Gwyn Ciesla 2015-05-26 19:20:40 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 19 Orion Poplawski 2015-05-26 19:54:42 UTC
I've not seen the use of py.cleanup before - can someone explain why that is needed?

Comment 20 Jerry James 2015-05-27 03:53:28 UTC
It isn't strictly necessary, just part of the pycmd package of utilities.  If pycmd is not available in EPEL 7, then I'm sure its absence can be worked around.

Comment 21 Orion Poplawski 2015-05-27 16:50:23 UTC
Would you be okay with this?

--- a/python-fastcache.spec
+++ b/python-fastcache.spec
@@ -6,20 +6,26 @@
 
 Name:           python-%{pkgname}
 Version:        1.0.2
-Release:        2%{?dist}
+Release:        3%{?dist}
 Summary:        C implementation of python3 lru_cache

 License:        MIT
 URL:            https://github.com/pbrady/%{pkgname}
 Source0:        https://github.com/pbrady/%{pkgname}/archive/v%{version}.tar.gz

+%if 0%{?fedora}
+# For py.cleanup
 BuildRequires:  pycmd
+%endif
 BuildRequires:  pytest
 BuildRequires:  python2-devel
 BuildRequires:  python-setuptools

 %if 0%{?with_py3}
+%if 0%{?fedora}
+# For py.cleanup
 BuildRequires:  python3-pycmd
+%endif
 BuildRequires:  python3-pytest
 BuildRequires:  python3-devel
 BuildRequires:  python3-setuptools
@@ -77,7 +83,9 @@ popd
 %check
 # Python 2 tests
 pushd %{pkgname}-%{version}
+%if 0%{?fedora}
 py.cleanup-2.7 -p
+%endif
 export PYTHONPATH=build/lib.linux-%{_arch}-2.7/fastcache/tests
 py.test-2.7 -v --ignore=fastcache/tests
 popd
@@ -85,7 +93,9 @@ popd
 %if 0%{?with_py3}
 # Python 3 tests
 pushd python3-%{pkgname}-%{version}
+%if 0%{?fedora}
 py.cleanup-3.4 -p
+%endif
 export PYTHONPATH=build/lib.linux-%{_arch}-3.4/fastcache/tests
 py.test-3.4 -v --ignore=fastcache/tests
 popd
@@ -108,6 +118,9 @@ popd
 %endif

 %changelog
+* Wed May 27 2015 Orion Poplawski <orion.com> - 1.0.2-3
+- Only run py.cleanup on Fedora
+
 * Mon Dec  1 2014 Jerry James <loganjerry> - 1.0.2-2
 - Be more verbose in the file listing
 - Run the tests verbosely


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