Spec URL: https://abompard.fedorapeople.org/reviews/nose2/python-nose2.spec SRPM URL: https://abompard.fedorapeople.org/reviews/nose2/python-nose2-0.6.5-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: nose2 is the next generation of nicer testing for Python, based on the plugins branch of unittest2. nose2 aims to improve on nose by: - providing a better plugin api - being easier for users to configure - simplifying internal interfaces and processes - supporting Python 2 and 3 from the same codebase, without translation - encourging greater community involvment in its development In service of some those goals, some features of nose will not be supported in nose2. See the documentation for a thorough rundown. Fedora Account System Username: abompard
Overall, this spec looks good. It conforms very well to the Fedora guidelines. However, there are a couple of issues. For example, if this package is intended to work with EPEL, you need to support the EPEL bootstrap case in the spec. You can see my python-pika package as an example: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/python-pika.git/tree/python-pika.spec The information about this is under EPEL Python 3 packaging draft: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bkabrda/EPEL7_Python3 The other issue is rather minor, and it's that %defattr() is being used in the file lists when it's unnecessary (it's setting it to the default value RPM does already).
I updated the package, taking into account two differences between F24 and EPEL: - Python2 packages now have the "python2" namespace, not just "python" - Python2 is still the default in EPEL, not Python3 It does not yet build on EPEL because of a missing dependency, but I'll request the branch once I get this dependency to support Python3.4 in EPEL.
You need to conditionalize the build, install, check, and file lists for the python3_other subpackage, as they're only supposed to be run in a python3X bootstrap condition.
Updated, thanks.
Your file list for the python3_other subpackage is wrong, as it has "sample-exec" something or other. You might want to verify that the list is correct...
Darn, sorry for that. Sometimes it's the most obvious things you see last. Updated.
Could you please post updated Spec and SRPM links so that fedora-review can process them?
It's the same links as before, should I set them in a special field?
They just have to be posted in the same form as you did in the first post.
Spec URL: https://abompard.fedorapeople.org/reviews/nose2/python-nose2.spec SRPM URL: https://abompard.fedorapeople.org/reviews/nose2/python-nose2-0.6.5-1.fc23.src.rpm
There's a dependency error. "python2-cov-core" doesn't exist. The current python-cov-core spec doesn't comply with the current Python packaging guidelines, so the dependency needs to be changed to "python-cov-core" in the Python 2 subpackage.
Ah, right, I fixed the BuildRequires but not the Requires in the python2 subpackage. Fixed now. Spec URL: https://abompard.fedorapeople.org/reviews/nose2/python-nose2.spec SRPM URL: https://abompard.fedorapeople.org/reviews/nose2/python-nose2-0.6.5-1.fc23.src.rpm
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Binary egg files not removed in %prep: ./nose2/tests/functional/support/scenario/tests_in_unzipped_eggs/pkgunegg-0.0.0-py2.7.egg ./nose2/tests/functional/support/scenario/tests_in_zipped_eggs/pkgegg-0.0.0-py2.7.egg See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Packaging_eggs_and_setuptools_concerns ===== 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". 171 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/makerpm/1375926-python- nose2/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. [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. [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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2-nose2 , python3-nose2 [x]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python2-nose2-0.6.5-1.fc26.noarch.rpm python3-nose2-0.6.5-1.fc26.noarch.rpm python-nose2-0.6.5-1.fc26.src.rpm python2-nose2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US api -> API, pi, ape python2-nose2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codebase -> co debase, co-debase, code base python2-nose2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US encourging -> encouraging, encountering, scourging python2-nose2.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nose2-2.7 python3-nose2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US api -> API, pi, ape python3-nose2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codebase -> co debase, co-debase, code base python3-nose2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US encourging -> encouraging, encountering, scourging python3-nose2.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nose2-3.5 python3-nose2.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nose2 python-nose2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US api -> API, pi, ape python-nose2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codebase -> co debase, co-debase, code base python-nose2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US encourging -> encouraging, encountering, scourging 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-nose2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US api -> API, pi, ape python3-nose2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codebase -> co debase, co-debase, code base python3-nose2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US encourging -> encouraging, encountering, scourging python3-nose2.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nose2 python3-nose2.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nose2-3.5 python2-nose2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US api -> API, pi, ape python2-nose2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codebase -> co debase, co-debase, code base python2-nose2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US encourging -> encouraging, encountering, scourging python2-nose2.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nose2-2.7 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. Requires -------- python3-nose2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3-cov-core python3-setuptools python3-six python2-nose2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python2 python(abi) python-cov-core python2-setuptools python2-six Provides -------- python3-nose2: python3-nose2 python3.5dist(nose2) python3dist(nose2) python2-nose2: python-nose2 python2-nose2 python2.7dist(nose2) python2dist(nose2) Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/n/nose2/nose2-0.6.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 479bab6880468f26fd8a1301d222ec97243e9a539501b5d242307bfa03969ff4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 479bab6880468f26fd8a1301d222ec97243e9a539501b5d242307bfa03969ff4 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1375926 --mock-config fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-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
Review comments: * There are a couple of spelling errors in the descriptions that are valid: "api" -> "API", "encourging" -> "encouraging". Please fix these. * I'm ignoring the complaint about the egg-info since it's in the tests and not installed. Otherwise, looks great to me. Fix the spelling issues on import. PACKAGE APPROVED
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-nose2
python-nose2-0.6.5-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-de3d12ca85
python-nose2-0.6.5-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-de3d12ca85
python-nose2-0.6.5-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.