Spec URL: https://www.happyassassin.net/reviews/python-httplib/python-httplib.spec SRPM URL: https://www.happyassassin.net/reviews/python-httplib/python-httpbin-0.5.0-1.fc26.src.rpm Description: Testing an HTTP Library can become difficult sometimes. RequestBin is fantastic for testing POST requests, but doesn't let you control the response. This exists to cover all kinds of HTTP scenarios. Additional endpoints are being considered. All endpoint responses are JSON-encoded. Fedora Account System Username: adamwill
Taking this review.
The Spec and SRPM do not appear to exist. Please upload them.
In fact, the entire ticket is named wrong. I am renowned for my attention to detail! Spec URL: https://www.happyassassin.net/reviews/python-httpbin/python-httpbin.spec SRPM URL: https://www.happyassassin.net/reviews/python-httpbin/python-httpbin-0.5.0-1.fc26.src.rpm
A couple of questions here: > Source0: https://github.com/%{github_owner}/%{github_name}/archive/%{github_commit}/%{github_name}-%{version}.tar.gz Why are you using the GitHub commit to do this? It forces you to declare a folder name in %autosetup later on. GitHub does provide https://github.com/Runscope/httpbin/archive/v0.5.0.tar.gz as an option. You can use it as a Source0 like so: https://github.com/%{github_owner}/%{github_name}/archive/v%{version}/%{github_name}-%{version}.tar.gz > LANG=en_US.UTF-8 %py3_build Why the LANG? Could you put a comment explaining why that was necessary?
Actually, as it turns out, you'd still nee the %autosetup -n, but it would be %{github_name}-%{version} instead.
"Why are you using the GitHub commit to do this?" The guidelines used to require this, on the basis that tags are mutable; commit IDs are not. Specifying a commit ID guarantees we will *always* get the same tarball, even if upstream does something sneaky like ninja-ing the version tag. The guidelines now allow the use of tags, by the looks of it, but I still kinda prefer using the commit ID explicitly, I was persuaded by the old logic here. "Why the LANG? Could you put a comment explaining why that was necessary?" Sure, I'll add a comment. setup.py has a fairly common bug where it reads content in from a file without explicitly specifying the codec, and the file contains non-ASCII characters; in the Koji build environment, we don't default to a UTF-8 locale, we get C (I think), so Python 3 uses 'ascii' codec and blows up. I don't recall why this doesn't affect Python 2, but oh well. It's easier to just specify a LANG for the commands than patch setup.py to specify a codec...
Running it through fedora-review indicates that the Python 3 subpackage has no runtime dependencies. I suspect that's in error?
Yep it is, thanks. Spec URL: https://www.happyassassin.net/reviews/python-httpbin/python-httpbin.spec SRPM URL: https://www.happyassassin.net/reviews/python-httpbin/python-httpbin-0.5.0-2.fc26.src.rpm
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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "ISC", "Unknown or generated". 29 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/makerpm/1406946-python- httpbin/licensecheck.txt [x]: 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/httpbin-0.5.0-py2.7.egg-info, /usr/lib/python3.5/site- packages/httpbin-0.5.0-py3.5.egg-info, /usr/lib/python3.5/site- packages/httpbin, /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/httpbin [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python2.7/site- packages/httpbin, /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/httpbin, /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/httpbin-0.5.0-py3.5.egg-info, /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/httpbin-0.5.0-py2.7.egg-info [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. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 4 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 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]: 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. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2-httpbin , python3-httpbin [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. [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-httpbin-0.5.0-2.fc26.noarch.rpm python3-httpbin-0.5.0-2.fc26.noarch.rpm python-httpbin-0.5.0-2.fc26.src.rpm python2-httpbin.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/httpbin/templates/forms-post.html python3-httpbin.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/httpbin/templates/forms-post.html 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-httpbin.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/httpbin/templates/forms-post.html python2-httpbin.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/httpbin/templates/forms-post.html 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- python3-httpbin (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-decorator python3-flask python3-itsdangerous python3-markupsafe python3-six python2-httpbin (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-decorator python-flask python-itsdangerous python-markupsafe python-six Provides -------- python3-httpbin: python3-httpbin python3.5dist(httpbin) python3dist(httpbin) python2-httpbin: python-httpbin python2-httpbin python2.7dist(httpbin) python2dist(httpbin) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Runscope/httpbin/archive/3f417eb81885f9e5fd99282121e3df9d619583c1/httpbin-0.5.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 710b85330b7a0b5a27bf8a8d8ce83e80304f84a32f61934cce7bf16dfaa69351 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 710b85330b7a0b5a27bf8a8d8ce83e80304f84a32f61934cce7bf16dfaa69351 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1406946 -m 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
> [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python2.7/site- > packages/httpbin, /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/httpbin, > /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/httpbin-0.5.0-py3.5.egg-info, > /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/httpbin-0.5.0-py2.7.egg-info This is the only remaining issue I'm concerned about. Please fix. :)
Thanks, try: Spec URL: https://www.happyassassin.net/reviews/python-httpbin/python-httpbin.spec SRPM URL: https://www.happyassassin.net/reviews/python-httpbin/python-httpbin-0.5.0-3.fc26.src.rpm
Everything looks good to me now. PACKAGE APPROVED
Thanks! SCM request is in.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-httpbin
Built for F24, F25 and Rawhide. EPEL builds are failing for reasons now documented in the spec. Thanks, Neal. Next up, python-pytest-httpbin!