Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-colorlog.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-colorlog-2.7.0-1.fc24.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/borntyping/python-colorlog Description: colorlog.ColoredFormatter is a formatter for use with Python's logging module that outputs records using terminal colors. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16465940 rpmlint output: [fab@laptop016 SRPMS]$ rpmlint python*-colorlog* python-colorlog.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) formatter -> formatted, for matter, for-matter python-colorlog.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ColoredFormatter -> Formatted python-colorlog.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US formatter -> formatted, for matter, for-matter 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. [fab@laptop016 noarch]$ rpmlint python*-colorlog-* python2-colorlog.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) formatter -> formatted, for matter, for-matter python2-colorlog.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ColoredFormatter -> Formatted python2-colorlog.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US formatter -> formatted, for matter, for-matter python3-colorlog.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) formatter -> formatted, for matter, for-matter python3-colorlog.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ColoredFormatter -> Formatted python3-colorlog.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US formatter -> formatted, for matter, for-matter 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Fedora Account System Username: fab
License: There is no LICENSE file. The license text is a section in the README file. It would be really nice to ask upstream to include a LICENSE file in the project (this is not a blocker) Tests: There is a test suite in colorlog/tests. Is there any reason for not having a %check section in the package? The package does not own its own directory: %{python3_sitelib}/%{srcname} and others: Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.5/site- packages/colorlog/__pycache__, /usr/lib/python2.7/site- packages/colorlog, /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/colorlog Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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. [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/colorlog, /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/colorlog, /usr/lib/python3.5/site- packages/colorlog/__pycache__ [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.5/site- packages/colorlog/__pycache__, /usr/lib/python2.7/site- packages/colorlog, /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/colorlog [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 40960 bytes in 2 files. [!]: 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 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. [!]: 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). [x]: 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. [-]: 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-colorlog-2.7.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm python3-colorlog-2.7.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm python-colorlog-2.7.0-1.fc26.src.rpm python2-colorlog.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) formatter -> formatted, for matter, for-matter python2-colorlog.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ColoredFormatter -> Formatted python2-colorlog.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US formatter -> formatted, for matter, for-matter python3-colorlog.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) formatter -> formatted, for matter, for-matter python3-colorlog.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ColoredFormatter -> Formatted python3-colorlog.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US formatter -> formatted, for matter, for-matter python-colorlog.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) formatter -> formatted, for matter, for-matter python-colorlog.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ColoredFormatter -> Formatted python-colorlog.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US formatter -> formatted, for matter, for-matter 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-colorlog.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) formatter -> formatted, for matter, for-matter python3-colorlog.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ColoredFormatter -> Formatted python3-colorlog.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US formatter -> formatted, for matter, for-matter python2-colorlog.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) formatter -> formatted, for matter, for-matter python2-colorlog.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ColoredFormatter -> Formatted python2-colorlog.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US formatter -> formatted, for matter, for-matter 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Requires -------- python3-colorlog (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python2-colorlog (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-colorlog: python3-colorlog python3.5dist(colorlog) python3dist(colorlog) python2-colorlog: python-colorlog python2-colorlog python2.7dist(colorlog) python2dist(colorlog) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/borntyping/python-colorlog/archive/v2.7.0.tar.gz#/colorlog-2.7.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1b2337cbd8f18c988a5410374cdc08c1bc8f9e981559f1bdcaddd5b77bdd3b9d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1b2337cbd8f18c988a5410374cdc08c1bc8f9e981559f1bdcaddd5b77bdd3b9d
Thanks for your comment and time to to review this package. (In reply to Athos Ribeiro from comment #1) > License: There is no LICENSE file. The license text is a section in the > README file. It would be really nice to ask upstream to include a LICENSE > file in the project (this is not a blocker) https://github.com/borntyping/python-colorlog/pull/37 > Tests: There is a test suite in colorlog/tests. Is there any reason for not > having a %check section in the package? Yes, the tests require colorlog to be installed which is not the case on the build system. > The package does not own its own directory: %{python3_sitelib}/%{srcname} > and others: > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.5/site- > packages/colorlog/__pycache__, /usr/lib/python2.7/site- > packages/colorlog, /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/colorlog It's been a while since my last work on packaging. First I thought that I was missing something but it seems that the example [1] is not simply wrong when it comes to ownership. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_common_spec_file Updated files: Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-colorlog.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-colorlog-2.7.0-2.fc24.src.rpm
There is a set of tests which run without installing the module. It would be nice to run those, at least. I will trust your judgement on it and leave it to you though, so I will not block the review on this matter. Other than that, problems are fixed. The MIT license text IS present in the README file and there is a pull request adding a LICENSE file to the package, as pointed out by the packager. Package looks good to me. Approved.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-colorlog
python-colorlog-2.7.0-2.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-e496b469bb
python-colorlog-2.7.0-2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-36675307ed
python-colorlog-2.7.0-2.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-2016-36675307ed
python-colorlog-2.7.0-2.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-e496b469bb
python-colorlog-2.9.0-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
python-colorlog-2.9.0-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.