Spec URL: http://jenselme.perso.centrale-marseille.fr/visible/SPECS/python-toml.spec SRPM URL: http://jenselme.perso.centrale-marseille.fr/visible/SRPMS/python-toml-0.9.0-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: Load toml file into python dictionary and dump dictionary into toml file. Fedora Account System Username: jujens
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: 1. The package description is too brief - to anyone who doesn't know what toml is, the description wouldn't be of any use. The description needs a couple more sentences to clarify what the package is, and why someone might want to install it. Also, see other issues below.... ===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jgu/Fedora/1231981-python- toml/licensecheck.txt The main (and only significant) file in this package, toml.py, lacks a license header at the top. While not strictly required, it is good practice to include a license header at the top of source files in addition to the LICENSE/COPYING file containing the license - please contact upstream and ask them to add a license header to the top of the file. I won't block passing review on this though. [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 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 %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: [x]: 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-toml [x]: Package functions as described. [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 architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Even though there is no test suite included, it's good practice to have the %check section present and a simple test to make sure the module imports with no errors, so something like (untested): # No test suite at present, so we'll just try importing PYTHONPATH=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{python2_sitebin} %{__python2} -c "import toml" PYTHONPATH=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{python3_sitebin} %{__python3} -c "import toml" [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 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-toml-0.9.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm python3-toml-0.9.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm python-toml-0.9.0-1.fc22.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- python-toml (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-toml (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python-toml: python-toml python3-toml: python3-toml Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/t/toml/toml-0.9.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d803e90b790ca561ae08f77c7b728ca11185d646c769d09d965879c129ef0dee CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d803e90b790ca561ae08f77c7b728ca11185d646c769d09d965879c129ef0dee Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1231981 Buildroot used: fedora-22-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Oops, check should be something like: # No test suite at present, so we'll just try importing PYTHONPATH=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{python2_sitelib} %{__python2} -c "import toml" PYTHONPATH=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{python3_sitelib} %{__python3} -c "import toml"
- Update description to explain what toml is - Try to import the package in %%check. I also asked upstream to include the tests in the release of pypi: https://github.com/uiri/toml/issues/37 - Ask upstream to include a license header: https://github.com/uiri/toml/issues/38 New SRPM url: http://jenselme.perso.centrale-marseille.fr/visible/SRPMS/python-toml-0.9.0-2.fc22.src.rpm SPECS: http://jenselme.perso.centrale-marseille.fr/visible/SPECS/python-toml.spec
The spec file link hasn't been updated.
Aha, I was hitting a cache - I see the new revision now. You could include the two test files from github as extra sources until upstream adds them to the tarball releases, and run the tests in %check. Is that feasible?
I am going to mark this approved. If it seems feasible to add the test sources to run in %check, go ahead and do so, but reading the TESTING document, it seems it will require another package to be created of BurntSushi's toml test suite and added to BuildRequires, along with adding the the go runtime/compiler to BuildRequires. As such, I'm not going to block package approval on it. If you decide to package BurntSushi's toml test suite, add me to the CC list of the BZ review ticket, and I'll review it for you.
Thanks. I will try to look at BurntSushi's toml test suite next week and see what I can do.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-toml Short Description: Python Library for Tom's Obvious, Minimal Language Upstream URL: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/toml/ Owners: jujens Branches: f21 f22
Git done (by process-git-requests).
python-toml-0.9.0-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-toml-0.9.0-2.fc21
python-toml-0.9.0-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-toml-0.9.0-2.fc22
python-toml-0.9.0-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository.
python-toml-0.9.0-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.
python-toml-0.9.0-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.