Spec URL: https://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-functools32.spec SRPM URL: https://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-functools32-3.2.3.2-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: Backport of the functools module from Python 3.2 for use on 2.7 Fedora Account System Username: hguemar Note: this is a python2 only package
Hey :) It seems like there is some problem with the source0: invalid-url Source0: https://pypi.io/packages/source/f/functools32-3.2.3-2.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found
* bad Source0 * the License is PSF but .spec states ASL The rest looks good.
Source0 and License fixed inplace. It also seems that %pypi_name is not defined: python2-functools32.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro Obsoletes python-%{pypi_name} < 3.2.3.2-1.fc23 %{pypi_name}
Looks good to me. 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: "Unknown or generated". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jruzicka/tmp/1355819-python- functools32/licensecheck.txt [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 10240 bytes in 1 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). [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. [-]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python2-functools32-3.2.3.2-1.fc23.noarch.rpm python-functools32-3.2.3.2-1.fc23.src.rpm python2-functools32.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Backport -> Back port, Back-port, Backpacker python2-functools32.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) functools -> functions python2-functools32.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Backport -> Back port, Back-port, Backpacker python2-functools32.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US functools -> functions python-functools32.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Backport -> Back port, Back-port, Backpacker python-functools32.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) functools -> functions python-functools32.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Backport -> Back port, Back-port, Backpacker python-functools32.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US functools -> functions 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- python2-functools32 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python2-functools32: python-functools32 python2-functools32 Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.io/packages/source/f/functools32/functools32-3.2.3-2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f6253dfbe0538ad2e387bd8fdfd9293c925d63553f5813c4e587745416501e6d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f6253dfbe0538ad2e387bd8fdfd9293c925d63553f5813c4e587745416501e6d Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1355819 Buildroot used: fedora-23-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Needed for latest pylint, blocking that BZ.
Except it doesn't fix the error I thought it would: pkg_resources.DistributionNotFound: The 'backports.functools-lru-cache' distribution was not found and is required by pylint
@Jon: the module you're looking for is likely this one: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/backports.functools_lru_cache/1.2.1 I don't know why there are multiple backports of that module (or partial like the one above), this one is needed by python-jsonschema and some others. https://bugs.launchpad.net/rally/+bug/1466055
Thanks, I just found that. :) Do you think they'll conflict? If not, I'll package it.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-functools32
ping?
(In reply to Jon Ciesla from comment #8) > Thanks, I just found that. :) > > Do you think they'll conflict? If not, I'll package it. Haïkel, have you had a chance to look at this?