Orion Poplawski 2015-12-30 13:09:58 EST Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python3-six.spec SRPM URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python3-six-1.10.0-1.el7.src.rpm Description: python-six provides simple utilities for wrapping over differences between Python 2 and Python 3. Fedora Account System Username: orion Copr: https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/g/python/python3_epel7/
Should it be mentioned in the package description that python-six is in RHEL7 and this is python3 only package?
I don't think it belongs in the description as I'm not sure it's relevant for consumers. Perhaps a comment in the spec file, but it will be retired on the master branch with a note to that effect so even that I'm not sure is necessary.
/me would think it'll be highly confusing for users to have different versions of six for python2 and python3. centos has six-1.9.0-2, that should be the same for RHEL. http://mirror.centos.org/centos/7/os/x86_64/Packages/python-six-1.9.0-2.el7.noarch.rpm
The python 3X stacks are treated as completely independent from the python 2 stack. See https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel%40lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/WJSHWN25VCHWBD5EIMXPZOHBTM6NJZYL/ for discussion. The changes in six from 1.9 to 1.10 are pretty minimal too.
It has been recently discussed in the list, and seems no issues found. I'll review it soon.
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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mock/sandbox/review/1294865-python3-six/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.4/site- packages/__pycache__(netstat-monitor, python3-pytest, python3-decorator, python3-six, python3-libs, python3-setuptools) Note: not related to epel7. [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 51200 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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]: 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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: python3-six-1.10.0-1.el7.centos.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- Provides -------- Separate "python34-six-1.10.0-1.el7.centos.noarch.rpm" checks: ---------------------------------- rpmlint: 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpm -qp --requires python34-six-1.10.0-1.el7.centos.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c 1 python(abi) = 3.4 1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 1 rpmlib(PartialHardlinkSets) <= 4.0.4-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 $ rpm -qp --provides python34-six-1.10.0-1.el7.centos.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c 1 python34-six = 1.10.0-1.el7.centos Source checksums ---------------- http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/s/six/six-1.10.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 105f8d68616f8248e24bf0e9372ef04d3cc10104f1980f54d57b2ce73a5ad56a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 105f8d68616f8248e24bf0e9372ef04d3cc10104f1980f54d57b2ce73a5ad56a Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m epel-7-x86_64 -b 1294865 Buildroot used: epel-7-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 Remarks: -------- 1) Please remove "This is the Python 2 build of the module" line from the description. Although "python3-six" package won't be ever built this note about Python 2 is a bit confusing; 2) Please add CHANGES to the %doc, worth keep it. Otherwise, the package is APPROVED.
Thanks for the review.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/python3-six
python3-six-1.10.0-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-9984dd80af
python3-six-1.10.0-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-9984dd80af
python3-six-1.10.0-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.