Spec URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-pytest-testmon.spec SRPM URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-pytest-testmon-0.8.1-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: This is a py.test plug-in which automatically selects and re- executes only tests affected by recent changes. Fedora Account System Username: churchyard
Spec URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-pytest-testmon.spec SRPM URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-pytest-testmon-0.8.2-1.fc23.src.rpm * Fri Mar 11 2016 Miro Hrončok <mhroncok> - 0.8.2-1 - New upstream release (removes the need for old patch) - Be consistent with Requires and BRs - Add coverage_pth to Requires - Run tests and BR on dependencies
Created attachment 1141741 [details] Build log with errors caused by tests. Hi, text session is failing, please see attached build.log.
Spec URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-pytest-testmon.spec SRPM URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-pytest-testmon-0.8.2-1.fc23.src.rpm - Use GitHub archive to get tests - export PYTHONPATH before running tests Now the tests should pass.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - add licence file to both packages ===== 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. [!]: 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. [!]: 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. [-]: 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. [?]: 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 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: [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2 -pytest-testmon , python3-pytest-testmon [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: 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. [x]: %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]: 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: python2-pytest-testmon-0.8.2-1.fc23.noarch.rpm python3-pytest-testmon-0.8.2-1.fc23.noarch.rpm python-pytest-testmon-0.8.2-1.fc23.src.rpm python2-pytest-testmon.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) py -> pt, p, y python2-pytest-testmon.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US py -> pt, p, y python3-pytest-testmon.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) py -> pt, p, y python3-pytest-testmon.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US py -> pt, p, y python-pytest-testmon.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) py -> pt, p, y python-pytest-testmon.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US py -> pt, p, y 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. All spelling errors are false positive. :) Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- python3-pytest-testmon (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-coverage python3-coverage_pth python3-pytest python3-setuptools python2-pytest-testmon (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python2-coverage python2-coverage_pth python2-pytest python2-setuptools Provides -------- python3-pytest-testmon: python3-pytest-testmon python2-pytest-testmon: python-pytest-testmon python2-pytest-testmon Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/tarpas/pytest-testmon/archive/v0.8.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8d44ed1ef0636fa6ba83b5c0bd23cf93560a46c9f8797e73c4673e870db72b87 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8d44ed1ef0636fa6ba83b5c0bd23cf93560a46c9f8797e73c4673e870db72b87
Spec URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-pytest-testmon.spec SRPM URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-pytest-testmon-0.8.2-1.fc23.src.rpm Added the license.
All good, package is approved. I'll set the flag once I'm a packager.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-pytest-testmon
python-pytest-testmon-0.8.2-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-8a8df6b7d5
python-pytest-testmon-0.8.2-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-c164e0f3b6
python-pytest-testmon-0.8.2-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 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-2016-8a8df6b7d5
python-pytest-testmon-0.8.2-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 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-2016-c164e0f3b6
python-pytest-testmon-0.8.2-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
python-pytest-testmon-0.8.2-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.