Bug 1657147 - Package-review: python-pyrabbit2 - A Pythonic interface to the RabbitMQ Management HTTP API
Summary: Package-review: python-pyrabbit2 - A Pythonic interface to the RabbitMQ Manag...
Status: POST
Alias: None
Product: RDO
Classification: Community
Component: Package Review
Version: unspecified
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
: trunk
Assignee: Ryan McCabe
QA Contact: hguemar
Depends On:
Blocks: 1643497 1669093 1726191
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2018-12-07 09:12 UTC by Matthias Runge
Modified: 2019-07-02 10:09 UTC (History)
0 users

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed:
rmccabe: rdo-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Matthias Runge 2018-12-07 09:12:53 UTC
Fork module to communicate the RabbitMQ HTTP Management API main documentation 
lives at 's no way to easily write programs against RabbitMQs management API   
without resorting to some messy urllib boilerplate code involving HTTP Basic   
authentication and parsing the JSON responses, etc. Pyrabbit abstracts this    
away & provides an intuitive, easy way to work with the data that lives inside 

rpmlint ./python-pyrabbit2.spec ../SRPMS/python-pyrabbit2-1.0.6-1.fc29.src.rpm 
python-pyrabbit2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US urllib -> gullible
python-pyrabbit2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Pyrabbit -> Rabbit
1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

SRPM: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-pyrabbit2-1.0.6-1.fc29.src.rpm
SPEC: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-pyrabbit2.spec

Comment 1 Ryan McCabe 2018-12-12 18:32:41 UTC
Note: rpmlint warnings are all spurious

Only minor nit is the license is not provided in a separate file, but this can and should be added upstream.

No issues with MUST items.

Package Review

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

===== 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
[-]: 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.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/ryan/1657147-python-
[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 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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
[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

[-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
[-]: 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).
[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.
[-]: 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.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Checking: python3-pyrabbit2-1.0.6-1.fc28.noarch.rpm
python3-pyrabbit2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US urllib -> gullible
python3-pyrabbit2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Pyrabbit -> Rabbit
python-pyrabbit2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US urllib -> gullible
python-pyrabbit2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Pyrabbit -> Rabbit
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
python3-pyrabbit2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US urllib -> gullible
python3-pyrabbit2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Pyrabbit -> Rabbit
python3-pyrabbit2.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/deslum/pyrabbit2 <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

python3-pyrabbit2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


Source checksums
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/pyrabbit2/pyrabbit2-1.0.6.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 43ab30ec90d59cbde06b10ec4b6f28db0b43e4746653565b74a2a2b6528649df
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 43ab30ec90d59cbde06b10ec4b6f28db0b43e4746653565b74a2a2b6528649df

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1657147
Buildroot used: fedora-28-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP

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