Spec URL: http://ralph.fedorapeople.org//python3-dateutil.spec SRPM URL: http://ralph.fedorapeople.org//python3-dateutil-2.4.2-3.fc24.src.rpm Description: The dateutil module provides powerful extensions to the standard datetime module available in Python 2.3+. This is the version for Python 3.
This is intended for epel7 only (not for rawhide). The infrastructure team needs it to build python34-arrow, which is needed for python34-fedmsg-core, which is needed for our mailman3 plugin. Note, also, that there used to be a distinct package in Fedora called python3-dateutil, reviewed here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810859 but it has since been retired and rolled into the mainstream python-dateutil package. That makes this (kind of) an unretirement request. Sorry for all the confusingness. Let me know if I can answer any questions, please!
I can take this request.
Package is APPROVED. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/python3-dateutil See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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. [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 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. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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 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]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python34-dateutil-2.4.2-3.el7.noarch.rpm python3-dateutil-2.4.2-3.el7.src.rpm python34-dateutil.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) datetime -> date time, date-time, daytime python34-dateutil.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datetime -> date time, date-time, daytime python34-dateutil.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python34-dateutil-2.4.2/NEWS python3-dateutil.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) datetime -> date time, date-time, daytime python3-dateutil.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datetime -> date time, date-time, daytime 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Requires -------- python34-dateutil (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python34-six tzdata Provides -------- python34-dateutil: python34-dateutil Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/dateutil/dateutil/archive/2.4.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1e2609732451f89215476b8096119c6efd81682f0edf1a07d4d1dea3603c1b5e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1e2609732451f89215476b8096119c6efd81682f0edf1a07d4d1dea3603c1b5e Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --prebuilt -n python3-dateutil --define DISTTAG=el7 Buildroot used: fedora-24-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
The issues in the review are no issue, but reported by fedora-review because I prebuilt on EL7 mock.
Thanks Patrick. I've put in the request in pkgdb now to have this unretired.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python3-dateutil/
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-6ec9b3631f