Bug 1228386 - Review Request: python-parsedatetime - Parse human-readable date/time strings in Python
Summary: Review Request: python-parsedatetime - Parse human-readable date/time strings...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Julien Enselme
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 1228389
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2015-06-04 19:47 UTC by Michele Baldessari
Modified: 2015-06-23 14:10 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-06-23 14:10:27 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:
jujens: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Michele Baldessari 2015-06-04 19:47:42 UTC
Spec URL: http://acksyn.org/files/rpms/python-parsedatetime/python-parsedatetime.spec
SRPM URL: http://acksyn.org/files/rpms/python-parsedatetime/python-parsedatetime-1.4-1.fc22.src.rpm

Description: 
parsedatetime is a python module that can parse human-readable date/time
strings.

Comment 1 Julien Enselme 2015-06-20 16:36:11 UTC
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". 38 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/1228386-python-
     parsedatetime/licensecheck.txt
[X]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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 61440 bytes in 10 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 %license.
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[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 does not use a name that already exists.
[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.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python-
     parsedatetime-doc , python3-parsedatetime
[X]: Package functions as described.
[X]: Latest version is packaged.
[X]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[X]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: 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]: 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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python-parsedatetime-1.4-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
          python-parsedatetime-doc-1.4-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
          python3-parsedatetime-1.4-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
          python-parsedatetime-1.4-1.fc23.src.rpm
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.



Requires
--------
python3-parsedatetime (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)

python-parsedatetime-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

python-parsedatetime (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)



Provides
--------
python3-parsedatetime:
    python3-parsedatetime

python-parsedatetime-doc:
    python-parsedatetime-doc

python-parsedatetime:
    python-parsedatetime



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/bear/parsedatetime/archive/v1.4.tar.gz#/parsedatetime-1.4.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 01cc6ce132a7e9d45487754ebc4997dba62562f599b014f9ce76d4670c13ed1b
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 01cc6ce132a7e9d45487754ebc4997dba62562f599b014f9ce76d4670c13ed1b


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1228386 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
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, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

You may use pypi (https://pypi.python.org/pypi/parsedatetime/1.4) to get the tarball instead of github. If you do, don't forget to remove upstream's egg-info.

Approved!

Comment 2 Julien Enselme 2015-06-20 17:10:29 UTC
Edit: you must use %{__python2} and %{python2_sitelib} macros since theses files must go with python2: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros

Comment 3 Michele Baldessari 2015-06-22 07:21:41 UTC
Thanks for the feedback Julien, much appreciated

Here are the new packages with the python->python2 macro changes:

Spec URL: http://acksyn.org/files/rpms/python-parsedatetime/python-parsedatetime.spec
SRPM URL: http://acksyn.org/files/rpms/python-parsedatetime/python-parsedatetime-1.4-2.fc22.src.rpm

Description: 
parsedatetime is a python module that can parse human-readable date/time
strings.

Comment 4 Julien Enselme 2015-06-22 20:29:05 UTC
Looks good. Approved!

Comment 5 Michele Baldessari 2015-06-23 06:24:12 UTC
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: python-parsedatetime
Short Description: Parse human-readable date/time strings in Python
Upstream URL: https://github.com/bear/parsedatetime
Owners: mbaldessari
Branches: f22 epel7
InitialCC:

Comment 6 Gwyn Ciesla 2015-06-23 12:16:25 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 7 Michele Baldessari 2015-06-23 14:10:27 UTC
I have built the package in RAWHIDE, once I have all the deps and fixes in
place for gcalcli I will try to push this on F22.


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