Bug 1418429 - Review Request: python-cachez - memoization cache decorator
Summary: Review Request: python-cachez - memoization cache decorator
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Alan Pevec (Fedora)
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
Blocks: 1416920
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2017-02-01 19:51 UTC by Eric Harney
Modified: 2018-03-02 11:08 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2017-02-17 20:52:01 UTC
Type: ---
apevec: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Eric Harney 2017-02-01 19:51:16 UTC
Spec URL: https://eharney.fedorapeople.org/python-cachez/0.1.0-1/python-cachez.spec
SRPM URL: https://eharney.fedorapeople.org/python-cachez/0.1.0-1/python-cachez-0.1.0-1.src.rpm
Description: Cache decorator for memoization
Fedora Account System Username: eharney

This is being packaged to support an EMC driver in OpenStack Cinder.  It is a requirement for python-storops.

Comment 1 Alan Pevec (Fedora) 2017-02-04 22:31:11 UTC
> Source0 and Summary
please see comments in bug 1418428

> Requires:       python2
> Requires:       python3
those are not needed, they are automatically generated as
python(abi) = 2.7
python(abi) = 3.5

Other than that looks good, please update the spec and srpm for the formal review.

Comment 2 Eric Harney 2017-02-06 15:40:51 UTC
Thanks, fixed this up and made other small changes based on bug 1418428:  cleaned up summary/desc, use pypi.io URL instead of pypi.python.org.

New spec and SRPM has been uploaded here:



Comment 3 Alan Pevec (Fedora) 2017-02-09 05:28:51 UTC

Package Review

[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

===== MUST items =====

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Apache (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Apache", "*No copyright*
     Apache (v2)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)".
     6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck below.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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
[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 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.
[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
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
[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 =====

[-]: 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.
[-]: 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
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[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
[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 =====

[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Checking: python2-cachez-0.1.0-2.fc26.noarch.rpm
python2-cachez.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) memoize -> memorize, memoir
python2-cachez.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US memoize -> memorize, memoir
python3-cachez.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) memoize -> memorize, memoir
python3-cachez.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US memoize -> memorize, memoir
python-cachez.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) memoize -> memorize, memoir
python-cachez.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US memoize -> memorize, memoir
python-cachez.src:42: W: setup-not-quiet
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
python3-cachez.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) memoize -> memorize, memoir
python3-cachez.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US memoize -> memorize, memoir
python2-cachez.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) memoize -> memorize, memoir
python2-cachez.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US memoize -> memorize, memoir
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

python3-cachez (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

python2-cachez (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Source checksums
https://pypi.io/packages/source/c/cachez/cachez-0.1.0.zip :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 43016507200ce6361edb4256339f4e17ce09693f42a3944eb34460651507766f
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 43016507200ce6361edb4256339f4e17ce09693f42a3944eb34460651507766f

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1418429
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP

*No copyright* Apache

*No copyright* Apache (v2)

*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)

Apache (v2.0)

Unknown or generated

Comment 4 Alan Pevec (Fedora) 2017-02-09 05:52:01 UTC
Please include following patch before the initial import to allow building for EL7:

 %{?python_provide:%python_provide python2-%{pypi_name}}
 BuildRequires:  python2-devel
+BuildRequires:  python-setuptools

Comment 5 Gwyn Ciesla 2017-02-09 16:26:14 UTC
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-cachez

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2017-02-09 20:30:19 UTC
python-cachez-0.1.0-2.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-5b03c43d71

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2017-02-10 00:50:59 UTC
python-cachez-0.1.0-2.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-2017-5b03c43d71

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2017-02-17 20:52:01 UTC
python-cachez-0.1.0-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.