Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/pkopkan/python-vistir/fedora-31-x86_64/01031211-python-delegator-py/python-delegator-py.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/pkopkan/python-vistir/fedora-31-x86_64/01031211-python-delegator-py/python-delegator-py-0.1.1-1.src.rpm Description: Library provides simplified interface Fedora Account System Username: pkopkan
Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/pkopkan/python-vistir/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01031768-python-delegator-py/python-delegator-py.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/pkopkan/python-vistir/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01031768-python-delegator-py/python-delegator-py-0.1.1-1.fc32.src.rpm
- Test are not provided in the pypi source, as such, it is not needed to include the following: %check %{__python3} setup.py test Package approved. 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-delegator-py/review-python- delegator-py/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: 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]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [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). [?]: 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. [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-delegator-py-0.1.1-1.fc32.noarch.rpm python-delegator-py-0.1.1-1.fc32.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
> Test are not provided in the pypi source, as such, it is not needed to include the following: Patrik, could you please use GitHub tarball with tests? There is just one but it makes sure this actually work as intended: https://github.com/amitt001/delegator.py/blob/master/tests/test_chain.py
thank you both for looking at this. (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #3) > Patrik, could you please use GitHub tarball with tests? Will do
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #3) > > Test are not provided in the pypi source, as such, it is not needed to include the following: > > Patrik, could you please use GitHub tarball with tests? > > There is just one but it makes sure this actually work as intended: > https://github.com/amitt001/delegator.py/blob/master/tests/test_chain.py It turns out that test is neither in github repo in 0.1.1. I tried get from master but test is failing. So I'll look if it is hard to backport. If yes I would wait for newer version.
> It turns out that test is neither in github repo in 0.1.1 mea culpa. waiting for the next release is fine then.
Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/pkopkan/python-vistir/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01044815-python-delegator-py/python-delegator-py.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/pkopkan/python-vistir/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01044815-python-delegator-py/python-delegator-py-0.1.1-1.src.rpm added patch for test and patch for fixing issue
Do we want to continue here or is it just another dependency bundled in pipenv?
Review stalled, resetting ticket status
The reporter account is not active anymore, closing as DEADREVIEW