Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-backports-csv.spec SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-backports-csv-1.0.1-1.fc26.src.rpm Description: Backport of Python 3's csv module for Python 2. The API of the csv module in Python 2 is drastically different from the csv module in Python 3. This is due, for the most part, to the difference between str in Python 2 and Python 3. Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain
Package Review ============== Packaging looks good but please ask upstream to provide a license text. [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. This should be fixed by: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372890 [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.5/site- packages/backports, /usr/lib/python3.5/site- packages/backports/__pycache__ ===== 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. [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. [!]: 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 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: [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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python2-backports-csv-1.0.1-1.fc26.noarch.rpm python3-backports-csv-1.0.1-1.fc26.noarch.rpm python-backports-csv-1.0.1-1.fc26.src.rpm python2-backports-csv.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Backport -> Back port, Back-port, Backpacker python2-backports-csv.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Backport -> Back port, Back-port, Backpacker python2-backports-csv.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US str -> st, tr, stir python3-backports-csv.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Backport -> Back port, Back-port, Backpacker python3-backports-csv.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Backport -> Back port, Back-port, Backpacker python3-backports-csv.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US str -> st, tr, stir python-backports-csv.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Backport -> Back port, Back-port, Backpacker python-backports-csv.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Backport -> Back port, Back-port, Backpacker python-backports-csv.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US str -> st, tr, stir 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-backports-csv.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Backport -> Back port, Back-port, Backpacker python3-backports-csv.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Backport -> Back port, Back-port, Backpacker python3-backports-csv.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US str -> st, tr, stir python2-backports-csv.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Backport -> Back port, Back-port, Backpacker python2-backports-csv.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Backport -> Back port, Back-port, Backpacker python2-backports-csv.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US str -> st, tr, stir 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Requires -------- python3-backports-csv (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python2-backports-csv (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-backports Provides -------- python3-backports-csv: python3-backports-csv python3.5dist(backports.csv) python3dist(backports.csv) python2-backports-csv: python-backports-csv python2-backports-csv python2.7dist(backports.csv) python2dist(backports.csv) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ryanhiebert/backports.csv/archive/1.0.1/backports-csv-1.0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : aef767b8b5a1aefb1578f22f427bfa929c4b3cd3697c2ce67723c8caab929fd6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : aef767b8b5a1aefb1578f22f427bfa929c4b3cd3697c2ce67723c8caab929fd6
This package have python licence but do not include a license, can be go ahead to aprove this package?
Yes, but please do ask upstream to include a copy of the license text. Lifting FE-Legal.
Thanks for the feedback! If so, I am fine with this packaging, setting the fedora-review to "+", this package have been aproved. Upstream issue: - https://github.com/ryanhiebert/backports.csv/issues/18
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-backports-csv
Are you going to import this?
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=22658142
The needinfo request[s] on this closed bug have been removed as they have been unresolved for 1000 days