Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://www.happyassassin.net/reviews/fedfind/fedfind.spec SRPM URL: https://www.happyassassin.net/reviews/fedfind/fedfind-1.0.6-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: Fedora Finder finds Fedora. For now, that means it finds Fedora images - for stable releases, milestone pre-releases, TC/RC composes, and nightly builds. Fedora Account System Username: adamwill
Sure, I'll help see it through :)
cached_property looks useful for lots of applications, let's not bundle it.
Besides the bundling, I see * rpmlint complains about shebangs in %python2_sitelib. These aren't executed directly, the shebangs can go. Not a blocker. * A manpage would be nice. Again, not a blocker per se, but a very strong NTH. I'll write one for you, if you're patient enough. Otherwise, no complaints.
yeah, I need to drop the shebangs, meant to do that a while back. I already kinda write the docs twice (in the web page and the command --help), I should probably come up with some system for re-using the content. strictly I don't think the review should be blocked by bundling cached_property as we're only prohibited from bundling things that are *already packaged in Fedora*, but I don't mind waiting. I guess i'll take the cached_property review since no-one else seems to want to...
I looked over this today and don't see any problems ( besides the surmountable ones mentioned in #3 ). However, there are releases up to 1.1.2 tagged in your repo, do you have an updated build for review?
No, I've been busy with Beta work. I need to drop the bundled cached_property now we package it, but haven't had time.
Updated to 1.1.3, with cached_property unbundled. Haven't done docs yet or fixed the shebangs (d'oh). https://www.happyassassin.net/reviews/fedfind/fedfind.spec https://www.happyassassin.net/reviews/fedfind/fedfind-1.1.3-1.fc22.src.rpm
Scratch build at http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9543737 Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [+/!] = Manual review pass/fail ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [+]: 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: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/pete/fedora/fedpkg/1194428-fedfind/licensecheck.txt [+]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [+]: Changelog in prescribed format. [-]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [+]: 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 [+]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [0]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [+]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+]: Package does not generate any conflict. [+]: 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. [+]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [+]: 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. [+]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [+]: 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. [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]: 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: [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep [+]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [+]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [0]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [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. [+]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [+]: Package functions as described. [+]: Latest version is packaged. [+]: 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. [+]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [+]: 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. [1]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. ========================================= [0] The packaged executables should be %{_bindir}/fedfind-%{py2_ver} and %{_bindir}fedfind-%{py3_ver} with symlinks to %{_bindir}/fedfind and %{_bindir}fedfind-3, respectively; ref https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Naming [1] Only complaints about shebangs here, no big deal. I trust you'll take care of [0] on commit. Package APPROVED.
I've cleaned up the shebangs for release 1.1.4, renamed 'fedfind3' package to 'python3-fedfind' and dropped the exec scripts from it (per the policy you only need to include both 2 and 3 versions of the scripts if they work differently). That means you can't have a pure Python 3 system and have a fedfind executable, but...eh, seems unimportant, and the policy specifically says that the default executable should be py2 for now. That's the version I'll import. I've updated the review directory with the 1.1.4 spec/SRPM if you want to check it.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: fedfind Short Description: Fedora image finder Upstream URL: https://www.happyassassin.net/fedfind/ Owners: adamwill Branches: f22 f21 f20 epel7 el6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Imported and built.