Spec URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-nose_warnings_filters.spec SRPM URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-nose_warnings_filters-0.1.5-1.fc25.src.rpm Description: If you run your test suite with nosetest, you can use this package to filter the warnings by setting rules in your setup.cfg. Fedora Account System Username: churchyard
Hello, this is merely an informal review as I am not sponsored yet. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== Primary issues ===== The LICENSE file is not present in the source package on pypi, rather, it's downloaded separately and from GitHub. I am not sure whether this is a problem or not. Perhaps upstream should be queried to package the LICENSE. ===== 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [?]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.6/site- packages, /usr/lib/python3.6 [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 [-]: 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. Upstream name contains underscores. [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]: 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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [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 ===== 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2-nose_warnings_filters , python3-nose_warnings_filters [?]: 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. Upstream tests are failing and this is noted in readme.md. [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-nose_warnings_filters-0.1.5-1.fc27.noarch.rpm python3-nose_warnings_filters-0.1.5-1.fc27.noarch.rpm python-nose_warnings_filters-0.1.5-1.fc27.src.rpm python2-nose_warnings_filters.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) nosetest -> nose test, nose-test, nonsexist python2-nose_warnings_filters.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nosetest -> nose test, nose-test, nonsexist Library name. python2-nose_warnings_filters.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cfg -> cf, cg, cog File extension. python2-nose_warnings_filters.noarch: W: no-documentation No documentation provided from upstream, except for a simple readme. python3-nose_warnings_filters.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) nosetest -> nose test, nose-test, nonsexist python3-nose_warnings_filters.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nosetest -> nose test, nose-test, nonsexist python3-nose_warnings_filters.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cfg -> cf, cg, cog python3-nose_warnings_filters.noarch: W: no-documentation python-nose_warnings_filters.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) nosetest -> nose test, nose-test, nonsexist python-nose_warnings_filters.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nosetest -> nose test, nose-test, nonsexist python-nose_warnings_filters.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cfg -> cf, cg, cog See above. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- python3-nose_warnings_filters (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-nose python3-setuptools python2-nose_warnings_filters (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-nose python-setuptools Provides -------- python3-nose_warnings_filters: python3-nose_warnings_filters python3.6dist(nose-warnings-filters) python3dist(nose-warnings-filters) python2-nose_warnings_filters: python-nose_warnings_filters python2-nose_warnings_filters python2.7dist(nose-warnings-filters) python2dist(nose-warnings-filters) Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/n/nose_warnings_filters/nose_warnings_filters-0.1.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 456c5b2ccca24e1d00a7b558274ebf9318305813dcb9585951a73ae11d76bb9d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 456c5b2ccca24e1d00a7b558274ebf9318305813dcb9585951a73ae11d76bb9d https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Carreau/nose_warnings_filters/master/LICENSE : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c12e37c417dbc8c5901ecd5c02e7e45d577ec0f73e2e4674e057791a5dffe8ba CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c12e37c417dbc8c5901ecd5c02e7e45d577ec0f73e2e4674e057791a5dffe8ba
(In reply to Sanqui (David Labský) from comment #1) > The LICENSE file is not present in the source package on pypi, rather, it's > downloaded separately and from GitHub. I am not sure whether this is a > problem > or not. Perhaps upstream should be queried to package the LICENSE. Done https://github.com/Carreau/nose_warnings_filters/pull/5
Thanks for making the pull request for upstream! Package looks good to me. Approved.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-nose_warnings_filters
python-nose_warnings_filters-0.1.5-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-56b7f30bf7
python-nose_warnings_filters-0.1.5-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 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-2017-56b7f30bf7
python-nose_warnings_filters-0.1.5-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.