Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-xunitparser.spec SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-xunitparser-1.3.3-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: xunitparser reads a JUnit/XUnit XML file and maps it to Python objects. It tries to use the objects available in the standard "unittest" module. Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain
It seems this is a duplicate of bug #1332999. Could you help getting that package approved and ask for co-maintainership there?
I am NOT a fedora packager but I am happy to carry out an informal review. * (sanity check) After installing I can import both modules from the interactive console. * Package is the latest version upstream * Yes the python3 testsuite fails for this package, i get FAILED (failures=6, errors=17) out of 42 tests. * Maybe you could put the date you reported the testsuite bug upstream in the comments. * In the source url you can use the %{modname} macro again in the url. * Fails to build in mock fc23 because python2-setuptools is not available, if you care about this package working on older versions of fedora then you could add a macro to test for fc23 and depend on this package instead. 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/worralph /fedora-review/python-xunitparser/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. [ ]: 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. [-]: 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 4 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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. [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-xunitparser , python3-xunitparser [?]: 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. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [?]: %check is present and all tests pass. [X]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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). Rpmlint ------- Checking: python2-xunitparser-1.3.3-1.fc22.noarch.rpm python3-xunitparser-1.3.3-1.fc22.noarch.rpm python-xunitparser-1.3.3-1.fc22.src.rpm python2-xunitparser.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unittest -> unit test, unit-test, unities python3-xunitparser.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unittest -> unit test, unit-test, unities python-xunitparser.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unittest -> unit test, unit-test, unities 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python2-xunitparser.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unittest -> unit test, unit-test, unities python3-xunitparser.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unittest -> unit test, unit-test, unities 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- python2-xunitparser (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-xunitparser (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python2-xunitparser: python-xunitparser python2-xunitparser python3-xunitparser: python3-xunitparser Source checksums ---------------- http://git.p.engu.in/laurentb/xunitparser/snapshot/xunitparser-1.3.3.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9cc83af533a4e038c0185c5dbacb92ce1ad8b27cf1b13492a815c493feb0ba17 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9cc83af533a4e038c0185c5dbacb92ce1ad8b27cf1b13492a815c493feb0ba17 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 rpmls ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/python2-xunitparser-1.3.3-1.fc23.noarch.rpm drwxr-xr-x /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/xunitparser-1.3.3-py2.7.egg-info -rw-r--r-- /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/xunitparser-1.3.3-py2.7.egg-info/PKG-INFO -rw-r--r-- /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/xunitparser-1.3.3-py2.7.egg-info/SOURCES.txt -rw-r--r-- /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/xunitparser-1.3.3-py2.7.egg-info/dependency_links.txt -rw-r--r-- /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/xunitparser-1.3.3-py2.7.egg-info/top_level.txt -rw-r--r-- /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/xunitparser.py -rw-r--r-- /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/xunitparser.pyc -rw-r--r-- /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/xunitparser.pyo drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/doc/python2-xunitparser -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/python2-xunitparser/AUTHORS -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/python2-xunitparser/README drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/licenses/python2-xunitparser -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/licenses/python2-xunitparser/LICENSE rpmls ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/python3-xunitparser-1.3.3-1.fc23.noarch.rpm -rw-r--r-- /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/__pycache__/xunitparser.cpython-34.pyc -rw-r--r-- /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/__pycache__/xunitparser.cpython-34.pyo drwxr-xr-x /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/xunitparser-1.3.3-py3.4.egg-info -rw-r--r-- /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/xunitparser-1.3.3-py3.4.egg-info/PKG-INFO -rw-r--r-- /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/xunitparser-1.3.3-py3.4.egg-info/SOURCES.txt -rw-r--r-- /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/xunitparser-1.3.3-py3.4.egg-info/dependency_links.txt -rw-r--r-- /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/xunitparser-1.3.3-py3.4.egg-info/top_level.txt -rw-r--r-- /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/xunitparser.py drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/doc/python3-xunitparser -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/python3-xunitparser/AUTHORS -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/python3-xunitparser/README drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/licenses/python3-xunitparser -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/licenses/python3-xunitparser/LICENSE
Created attachment 1158330 [details] repair testsuite python >= 3.4
Python 3.4 changed the testsuite behaviour such that each call to run removed references to tests in the suite. This breaks the xunitparser test suite on python >=3.4 because it relies on the old behaviour. This patch restores the previous behaviour as recommended by https://docs.python.org/3.4/library/unittest.html#unittest.TestSuite when the old behaviour is relied upon.
A minor comment, You can use the global _docdir_fmt %{name} variable at the top of the spec to install the documentation just once.
I'll grab this for a formal review.
Has the duplication with bug #1332999 been figured out?
(In reply to philip.worrall from comment #2) > * Yes the python3 testsuite fails for this package, i get FAILED > (failures=6, errors=17) out of 42 tests. > * Maybe you could put the date you reported the testsuite bug upstream in > the comments. You attached patch, will apply in import time, thanks. Will also put date. > * In the source url you can use the %{modname} macro again in the url. will do in import time > * Fails to build in mock fc23 because python2-setuptools is not available, > if you care about this package working on older versions of fedora then you > could add a macro to test for fc23 and depend on this package instead. /me don't care about fc23
(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #8) <snip> > > * Fails to build in mock fc23 because python2-setuptools is not available, > > if you care about this package working on older versions of fedora then you > > could add a macro to test for fc23 and depend on this package instead. > /me don't care about fc23 Are you at least open to patches from those of us who do want it to work on f23?
rpmlint is clean, review looks good. I would prefer it if the URL was the full url, but that's just a personal thing. Also, if you could, go ahead and apply the supplied patches. Either the tests need to work correctly or be disabled.
(In reply to Tim Flink from comment #7) > Has the duplication with bug #1332999 been figured out? I think the issue was that the previous reporter still needed to go through sponsorship but this package was/is needed now for some of the ongoing QA stuff.
(In reply to Tim Flink from comment #9) > (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #8) > <snip> > > > > * Fails to build in mock fc23 because python2-setuptools is not available, > > > if you care about this package working on older versions of fedora then you > > > could add a macro to test for fc23 and depend on this package instead. > > /me don't care about fc23 > > Are you at least open to patches from those of us who do want it to work on > f23? Sorry i just double checked and it does build on fc23 as is. See link to copr build https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/worralph/pending/package/python-xunitparser/ i think my mock was using the fc22 config which doesnt have python2-setuptools.
Okay, in that case, I'll go ahead and say approved.
(In reply to philip.worrall from comment #11) > (In reply to Tim Flink from comment #7) > > Has the duplication with bug #1332999 been figured out? > > I think the issue was that the previous reporter still needed to go through > sponsorship but this package was/is needed now for some of the ongoing QA > stuff. The issue has been sorted out AFAIK. I talked with Lukas and Igor today and I think the plan is to mark #1332999 report as a duplicate of this one. I'm a little annoyed with how this was handled but it's kind of a side-effect of the process we have. I mostly want see this packaged because we do need it for a QA tool.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-xunitparse
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-xunitparser
python-xunitparser-1.3.3-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-015ee45289
python-xunitparser-1.3.3-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-7ef1146b3f
*** Bug 1332999 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
python-xunitparser-1.3.3-1.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-2016-015ee45289
python-xunitparser-1.3.3-1.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-2016-7ef1146b3f
python-xunitparser-1.3.3-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
python-xunitparser-1.3.3-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.