Bug 1395341 (python-zeroconf) - Review Request: python-zeroconf - A Python Multicast DNS Service Discovery Library
Summary: Review Request: python-zeroconf - A Python Multicast DNS Service Discovery Li...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 1392089
Alias: python-zeroconf
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Athos Ribeiro
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2016-11-15 17:23 UTC by Fabian Affolter
Modified: 2016-11-16 21:09 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-11-16 21:09:20 UTC
Type: ---
athoscribeiro: fedora-review?

Attachments (Terms of Use)
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Description Fabian Affolter 2016-11-15 17:23:20 UTC 
Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-zeroconf.spec
SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-zeroconf-0.17.6-1.fc24.src.rpm

Project URL: https://github.com/jstasiak/python-zeroconf

Description:
A pure Python Multicast DNS Service Discovery Library (Bonjour/Avahi
compatible).

Koji scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16465405

rpmlint output:
[fab@laptop016 SRPMS]$ rpmlint python*-zero*
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

[fab@laptop016 noarch]$ rpmlint python*-zero*
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Fedora Account System Username: fab
Comment 1 Athos Ribeiro 2016-11-16 21:03:21 UTC 
The package does not install:

No package provides python2-enum34

Also, consider the following:

$ dnf --enablerepo=rawhide repoquery --whatprovides python3-enum34
python3-libs-0:3.5.2-6.fc26.i686
python3-libs-0:3.5.2-6.fc26.x86_64

python3-enum34 is already provided by python3-libs.

Upstream ships a test suite in test_zeroconf.py. Is there any reason the package does not have a %check section?
Comment 2 Athos Ribeiro 2016-11-16 21:09:20 UTC 
Actually, there is an older review request for this package. I am marking it as a duplication and closing.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1392089 ***
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.