Spec URL: https://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/python-pathlib2.spec SRPM URL: https://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/python-pathlib2-2.1.0-1.fc26.src.rpm Description: The old pathlib module on bitbucket is in bugfix-only mode. The goal of pathlib2 is to provide a backport of standard pathlib module which tracks the standard library module, so all the newest features of the standard pathlib can be used also on older Python versions. Fedora Account System Username: pcpa
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1406962-python- pathlib2/licensecheck.txt All source files are without license headers. Please, ask to upstream to confirm the licensing of code and/or content/s, and add license headers https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [?]: 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. [?]: 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 [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. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2-pathlib2 , python3-pathlib2 [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-pathlib2-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm python3-pathlib2-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm python-pathlib2-2.1.0-1.fc26.src.rpm python2-pathlib2.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) filesystem -> file system, file-system, systemically python2-pathlib2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pathlib -> path lib, path-lib, pathless python2-pathlib2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bitbucket -> bit bucket, bit-bucket, bucket python2-pathlib2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bugfix -> bug fix, bug-fix, firebug python2-pathlib2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backport -> back port, back-port, backpacker python3-pathlib2.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) filesystem -> file system, file-system, systemically python3-pathlib2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pathlib -> path lib, path-lib, pathless python3-pathlib2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bitbucket -> bit bucket, bit-bucket, bucket python3-pathlib2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bugfix -> bug fix, bug-fix, firebug python3-pathlib2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backport -> back port, back-port, backpacker python-pathlib2.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) filesystem -> file system, file-system, systemically python-pathlib2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pathlib -> path lib, path-lib, pathless python-pathlib2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bitbucket -> bit bucket, bit-bucket, bucket python-pathlib2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bugfix -> bug fix, bug-fix, firebug python-pathlib2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backport -> back port, back-port, backpacker python-pathlib2.src:3: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 1) 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 16 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-pathlib2.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) filesystem -> file system, file-system, systemically python3-pathlib2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pathlib -> path lib, path-lib, pathless python3-pathlib2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bitbucket -> bit bucket, bit-bucket, bucket python3-pathlib2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bugfix -> bug fix, bug-fix, firebug python3-pathlib2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backport -> back port, back-port, backpacker python2-pathlib2.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) filesystem -> file system, file-system, systemically python2-pathlib2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pathlib -> path lib, path-lib, pathless python2-pathlib2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bitbucket -> bit bucket, bit-bucket, bucket python2-pathlib2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bugfix -> bug fix, bug-fix, firebug python2-pathlib2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backport -> back port, back-port, backpacker 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. Requires -------- python3-pathlib2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python2-pathlib2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-pathlib2: python3-pathlib2 python3.5dist(pathlib2) python3dist(pathlib2) python2-pathlib2: python-pathlib2 python2-pathlib2 python2.7dist(pathlib2) python2dist(pathlib2) Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/pathlib2/pathlib2-2.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : deb3a960c1d55868dfbcac98432358b92ba89d95029cddd4040db1f27405055c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : deb3a960c1d55868dfbcac98432358b92ba89d95029cddd4040db1f27405055c Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1406962 --plugins Python -m fedora-rawhide-i386 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Issues: [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1406962-python- pathlib2/licensecheck.txt All source files are without license headers. Please, ask to upstream to confirm the licensing of code and/or content/s, and add license headers https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification [!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Many thanks for reviewing it! Added %check, and extra build requires to run %check. About the license, there is only one python source file, and 2 test files. This a common practice of having a single LICENSE file (kind like having a single COPYING file), and there is a single author. Also changed the URL field, as it was somewhat confusing; it was pathlib page, not pathlib2. Spec URL: https://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/python-pathlib2.spec SRPM URL: https://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/python-pathlib2-2.1.0-2.fc26.src.rpm
(In reply to Paulo Andrade from comment #3) > Many thanks for reviewing it! Thanks for your work! > About the license, there is only one python source file, and 2 > test files. This a common practice of having a single LICENSE > file (kind like having a single COPYING file), and there is a > single author. So upstream may easily fix the header License where are missing
Submitted request about license issues at https://github.com/mcmtroffaes/pathlib2/issues/14
Many thanks for the review!
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-pathlib2
python-pathlib2-2.1.0-2.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-a461353f4a
python-pathlib2-2.1.0-2.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-a461353f4a
python-pathlib2-2.1.0-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.