Spec URL: https://hvad.fedorapeople.org/fedora/python-influxdb/python-influxdb.spec SRPM URL: https://hvad.fedorapeople.org/fedora/python-influxdb/python-influxdb-3.0.0-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: InfluxDB Python is a client for interacting with InfluxDB. Fedora Account System Username: hvad
Package Review (Informal) ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ==== TODO ==== * [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License field should have the correct name of the license, which in this case is just `MIT` (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT?rd=Licensing/MIT). This will also fix the rpmlint errors: python3-influxdb.noarch: W: invalid-license MIT License python2-influxdb.noarch: W: invalid-license MIT License * [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. Please be more specific in (Build)Requires and put python2-* instead of just python- wherever it is possible. E.g. python2-setuptools, python2-requests * [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. If tests are available, it is generally a good idea to run them in %check. * You can use macro %{summary}, which will contain content of the Summary tag (it's generated automatically, you do not have to define it). Just keep the first Summary tag as it is and in python2/3- subpackages you can use `Summary: %{summary}`. ===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [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. [!]: 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. [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. [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [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. [!]: %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-influxdb-3.0.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm python3-influxdb-3.0.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm python-influxdb-3.0.0-1.fc24.src.rpm python2-influxdb.noarch: W: invalid-license MIT License python3-influxdb.noarch: W: invalid-license MIT License python-influxdb.src: W: invalid-license MIT License 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-influxdb.noarch: W: invalid-license MIT License python2-influxdb.noarch: W: invalid-license MIT License 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- python3-influxdb (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-dateutil python3-pytz python3-requests python3-six python2-influxdb (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-requests python-six python2-dateutil pytz Provides -------- python3-influxdb: python3-influxdb python2-influxdb: python-influxdb python2-influxdb Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/i/influxdb/influxdb-3.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 89ad6443dc89e4dda530827716afca5f488f98a406aab9f3699ffb984710da8d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 89ad6443dc89e4dda530827716afca5f488f98a406aab9f3699ffb984710da8d Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1383416 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, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Note: I am not yet sponsored and thus cannot approve the package until I get sponsored.
Iryna, I think if you are not sponsored yet then you should not assign reviews to your self. Suppose some other reviewer want to approve package then neither he can approve as you have assigned review to yourself nor you can approve. Thus nothing get progressed on such package reviews.
Once Iryna unofficially approves the package, I will review it and approve it myself to speed things up, don't worry.
Thanks Miro for your reply.
Hi Parag, thank you for your concern, I should not have assigned it to myself. However, I have been sponsored and now I can approve packages and continue with the review.
Hi, * [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License field should have the correct name of the license, which in this case is just `MIT` (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT?rd=Licensing/MIT). This will also fix the rpmlint errors: python3-influxdb.noarch: W: invalid-license MIT License python2-influxdb.noarch: W: invalid-license MIT License I don't understand MIT licence seem valid. * [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. Please be more specific in (Build)Requires and put python2-* instead of just python- wherever it is possible. E.g. python2-setuptools, python2-requests I fix this issue. * You can use macro %{summary}, which will contain content of the Summary tag (it's generated automatically, you do not have to define it). Just keep the first Summary tag as it is and in python2/3- subpackages you can use `Summary: %{summary}`. I use macro %{summary} Best regard
(In reply to David Hannequin from comment #7) > Hi, > > * [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > License field should have the correct name of the license, which in this > case is just `MIT` > (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT?rd=Licensing/MIT). This will > also fix the rpmlint errors: > python3-influxdb.noarch: W: invalid-license MIT License > python2-influxdb.noarch: W: invalid-license MIT License > > I don't understand MIT licence seem valid. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Software_License_List and especially the "Short Name" column. In License tag this short name must be used, so not "MIT License" but just "MIT".
Hi, Thanks Miro. License short name is fix. Best regard
Hi David, thank you for the changes, they look good. (In reply to Iryna Shcherbina from comment #1) > * [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. > If tests are available, it is generally a good idea to run them in %check. What about the tests? Is there any good reason not to run tests?
Hi, * [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. If tests are available, it is generally a good idea to run them in %check. I try to do work test but it failed every time. I'll report to upstream for fix this. Can this still pass for the review? Best regard
Hi David, nosetests allows to exclude tests which are failing. I have tried to run tests for this package and only one test module fails, which you can exclude as follows: %check nosetests-%{python2_version} -e client_test_with_server.py nosetests-%{python3_version} -e client_test_with_server.py You will need to add all the necessary `BuildRequires` for the tests to run which are documented on GitHub [0][1]. I would appreciate if you try to do it. [0] https://github.com/influxdata/influxdb-python/blob/master/test-requirements.txt [1] https://github.com/influxdata/influxdb-python/blob/master/requirements.txt
Hi, Thanks for your advice. I try to fix but i read this https://github.com/influxdata/influxdb-python/issues/376 : Spec URL: https://hvad.fedorapeople.org/fedora/python-influxdb/python-influxdb.spec SRPM URL: https://hvad.fedorapeople.org/fedora/python-influxdb/python-influxdb-3.0.0-1.fc25.src.rpm Best regard
Thank you for the updates, David. Everything looks good. Please follow up with the upstream on the failing tests, and make sure to update the spec file after the next release when the issues are fixed. You also might consider adding the comment for yourself in the spec file explaining why the specific test is excluded with the link to your issue. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16617144 Package approved.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-influxdb
python-influxdb-3.0.0-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-603e246239
python-influxdb-3.0.0-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-faaf1fc2a3
python-influxdb-3.0.0-1.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-faaf1fc2a3
python-influxdb-3.0.0-1.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-2016-603e246239
python-influxdb-3.0.0-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
python-influxdb-3.0.0-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.