Bug 908842 - Review Request: python-subunit - Python implementation of subunit test streaming protocol
Summary: Review Request: python-subunit - Python implementation of subunit test stream...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Alan Pevec (Fedora)
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 958344
Blocks: 913200 962132
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2013-02-07 16:30 UTC by Pádraig Brady
Modified: 2016-01-04 14:45 UTC (History)
8 users (show)

Fixed In Version: python-subunit-0.0.12-5.el6
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-06-13 06:46:42 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
apevec: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)
Sample spec file for subunit (4.96 KB, text/x-rpm-spec)
2013-04-24 20:56 UTC, Jerry James
no flags Details
patch to unbundle iso8601 (3.42 KB, patch)
2013-05-29 09:01 UTC, Matthias Runge
no flags Details | Diff

Description Pádraig Brady 2013-02-07 16:30:39 UTC
Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/grizzly-test-rpms/python-subunit.spec
SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/grizzly-test-rpms/python-subunit-0.0.10-1.fc15.src.rpm
Description: A streaming protocol for test result
Fedora Account System Username: pbrady

Comment 1 Alan Pevec (Fedora) 2013-02-25 19:05:12 UTC
tldr:
licensing clarification
bundled iso8601
BR python2-devel


Package Review
==============

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


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

Generic:
[!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
ASL 2.0 was choosen for packaging, README says Apache 2.0 or BSD 3-clause, points to COPYING which is not included in the source tarball, and few source files have different license header, see below.

[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
     supported primary architecture.
[-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
bundles and patches iso8601
 - upstream seems dead
 - add this patch in python-iso8601 RPM, if essential

[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[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 %doc.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)",
     "Unknown or generated".
* GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)
python-subunit-0.0.10/python/subunit/tests/TestUtil.py

Not sure that GPL can blend into ASL 2.0, quickfix: remove all tests and this from RPM?

* MIT/X11 (BSD like)
python-subunit-0.0.10/python/subunit/iso8601.py

This bundled lib and should be replaced with python-iso8601 dependency.

* Unknown or generated
python-subunit-0.0.10/setup.py

Covered by README.

[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
     Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
* add python-iso8601 dep, after removing bundled iso8601.py
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
     in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
     Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[!]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
[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.
[!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
 BR python2-devel

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[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)
[!]: 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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
     --requires).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: 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.
n/a if tests and TestUtil.py are removed (see license discusion above)
[-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
Does any package do that? Timestamps are build time.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.

===== 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.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python-subunit-0.0.10-1.fc19.src.rpm
          python-subunit-0.0.10-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
python-subunit.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/subunit/tests/TestUtil.py
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit2gtk
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-tags
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tap2subunit
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit2junitxml
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-ls
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-filter
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit2pyunit
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-notify
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-stats
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 9 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint python-subunit
python-subunit.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/subunit/tests/TestUtil.py
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit2gtk
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-tags
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tap2subunit
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit2junitxml
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-ls
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-filter
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit2pyunit
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-notify
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-stats
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 9 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
python-subunit-0.0.10-1.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    
    /usr/bin/python  
    python(abi) = 2.7
    python-testtools >= 0.9.23



Provides
--------
python-subunit-0.0.10-1.fc19.noarch.rpm:
    
    python-subunit = 0.0.10-1.fc19



MD5-sum check
-------------
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/python-subunit/python-subunit-0.0.10.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 40d166e1384d82d826135f924a2cc8f2e9d833acaa29616df432ec845ea87e23
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 40d166e1384d82d826135f924a2cc8f2e9d833acaa29616df432ec845ea87e23


Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64

Comment 2 Jerry James 2013-04-24 20:56:12 UTC
Created attachment 739598 [details]
Sample spec file for subunit

Is there any chance you could do the full subunit package, instead of just the python part?  The "check" package can use the C interface, if available.  I started working on a spec file before I found this review bug; what I have so far is attached.  I don't consider it final.  The names of the subpackages need some thought, proper Requires (or lack thereof) between the main package and the subpackages need to be investigated, the iso8601 bundling needs to be handled somehow, etc.

Comment 3 Pádraig Brady 2013-04-24 21:44:09 UTC
I wasn't aware of the parent package TBH.
It makes sense to add your spec in a new review request,
and we can obsolete this separate python-subunit source package when it lands

Comment 4 Pádraig Brady 2013-05-18 04:45:53 UTC
Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/grizzly-test-rpms/python-subunit.spec
SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/grizzly-test-rpms/python-subunit-0.0.12-1.fc18.src.rpm
Description: A streaming protocol for test result
Fedora Account System Username: pbrady

Comment 5 Alan Pevec 2013-05-28 17:04:26 UTC
(In reply to Pádraig Brady from comment #4)

Mock build fails in %check:
ImportError: No module named iso8601
ImportError: No module named testtools
ImportError: No module named testtools.compat

Those need to be added as BRs

Comment 6 Pádraig Brady 2013-05-28 17:09:16 UTC
Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/grizzly-test-rpms/python-subunit.spec
SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/grizzly-test-rpms/python-subunit-0.0.12-2.fc18.src.rpm
Description: A streaming protocol for test result
Fedora Account System Username: pbrady

Comment 7 Alan Pevec 2013-05-28 22:44:37 UTC
Now build fails due to failing unittests (need to look into details):
...
======================================================================
FAIL: test_args (test_test_protocol.TestExecTestCase)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/builddir/build/BUILD/python-subunit-0.0.12/python/subunit/tests/test_test_protocol.py", line 1012, in test_args
    self.assertEqual(1, result.testsRun)
AssertionError: 1 != 0
======================================================================
FAIL: test_run (test_test_protocol.TestExecTestCase)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/builddir/build/BUILD/python-subunit-0.0.12/python/subunit/tests/test_test_protocol.py", line 1035, in test_run
    ], result._events)
AssertionError: Lists differ: [('startTest', <subunit.Remote... != []
First list contains 9 additional elements.
First extra element 0:
('startTest', <subunit.RemotedTestCase description='old mcdonald'>)
Diff is 752 characters long. Set self.maxDiff to None to see it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ran 305 tests in 0.722s
FAILED (failures=2)

Comment 8 Matthias Runge 2013-05-29 08:56:17 UTC
subunit bundles iso8601

Comment 9 Matthias Runge 2013-05-29 09:01:29 UTC
Created attachment 754267 [details]
patch to unbundle iso8601

Comment 10 Alan Pevec 2013-05-29 10:08:47 UTC
(In reply to Matthias Runge from comment #9)
> patch to unbundle iso8601

This is already done in comment 6 version.

Comment 11 Matthias Runge 2013-05-29 10:21:35 UTC
Please forget #c8 and #c9. It has already been addressed.

Comment 12 Jerry James 2013-05-29 13:58:25 UTC
However, avoid-extras.patch bundles a piece of python-extras, which upstream doesn't do.  The correct thing to do is drop that patch and watch bug 958344.

Incidentally, I just need movement on that and bug 965862 and I'll have a full subunit package ready for review.

Comment 13 Pádraig Brady 2013-05-29 15:21:32 UTC
Well tests pass here in rpmbuild.
Hmm what's the difference...
...whoa find -perm +111 operation has changed!
Update all your scripts to -perm /111

Updated package coming...

Comment 14 Pádraig Brady 2013-05-29 15:23:52 UTC
Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/grizzly-test-rpms/python-subunit.spec
SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/grizzly-test-rpms/python-subunit-0.0.12-3.fc18.src.rpm
Description: A streaming protocol for test result
Fedora Account System Username: pbrady

Comment 15 Alan Pevec 2013-05-29 16:00:00 UTC
re. python-extras - it's a silly "unlibrary" from OpenStack CI folks, as commented in bug 958344 comment 6 - there isn't anything else using it afaik.

Comment 16 Alan Pevec 2013-05-29 17:00:21 UTC
tl;dr: License should be ASL 2.0 and GPLv2+

Package Review
==============

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

===== 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]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
     python-extras is an "unlibrary"
[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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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 %doc.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.

* GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)
python-subunit-0.0.12/python/subunit/tests/TestUtil.py is GPLv2+

[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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
[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).

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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[-]: 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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
[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: python-subunit-0.0.12-3.fc19.noarch.rpm
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit2gtk
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-tags
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tap2subunit
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit2junitxml
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-2to1
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-ls
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-filter
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit2pyunit
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-notify
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-1to2
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-stats
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint python-subunit
python-subunit.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/subunit/tests/TestUtil.py
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit2gtk
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-tags
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tap2subunit
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit2junitxml
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-ls
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-filter
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit2pyunit
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-notify
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-stats
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 9 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
python-subunit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python
    python(abi)
    python-iso8601
    python-testtools



Provides
--------
python-subunit:
    python-subunit



Source checksums
----------------
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/python-subunit/python-subunit-0.0.12.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 2186662f871cbfb7957b356212e3c96f96946c41b538dc43f278df8798ed36de
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2186662f871cbfb7957b356212e3c96f96946c41b538dc43f278df8798ed36de


Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 908842

Comment 17 Pádraig Brady 2013-05-29 17:45:10 UTC
That file is removed from the install RPM so ASL only is fine.

I previously contacted the upstream author about it who said:

"I don't think it's shipped with subunit is it? It's only a test harness thingy.

Also, Python code doesn't link as such - no derivative work is created
by running code, so if it is currently shipped, it's certainly not a
license violation.

All that said, yes, I'd be happy to have it removed/replaced."

Comment 18 Alan Pevec 2013-05-29 18:25:47 UTC
(In reply to Pádraig Brady from comment #17)
> That file is removed from the install RPM so ASL only is fine.

Yeah, I thought about arguing that way myself but then realized it is still in SRPM which we do distribute, so I wasn't sure. Should we get help from fedora-legal?

Comment 19 Jerry James 2013-05-29 19:43:26 UTC
There is a process to follow if you wish to bundle an external library: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries.

Comment 20 Pádraig Brady 2013-05-29 21:33:35 UTC
Well we can't tag the package as ASL and GPL as they're incompat.
I would think that shipping unused GPL code in the srpm is OK,
and that restriction would only apply to patented code or non kosher licences.
Anyway I've sent a mail to https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal for clarification.

Re python-extras. It goes against my better judgement as subunit is the only package using the extras logic and the extras logic was part of subunit a couple of versions back. But I haven't the time or energy to do the right thing here, so a new package coming up that depends on python-extras. Please make this available on f17,18,19,20,el6. We'll also need to propagate this nonsense to RDO, RHOS4.0, ...

Comment 21 Pádraig Brady 2013-05-29 21:43:24 UTC
Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/grizzly-test-rpms/python-subunit.spec
SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/grizzly-test-rpms/python-subunit-0.0.12-4.fc18.src.rpm
Description: A streaming protocol for test result
Fedora Account System Username: pbrady

Comment 22 Pádraig Brady 2013-05-30 08:59:35 UTC
Legal list say License: covers the RPMs only.
As long as the SRPMs contain only "FOSS" stuff, that's fine.

Comment 23 Alan Pevec 2013-05-30 09:30:36 UTC
ok, so this is now blocked until python-extras review bug 958344 is done.
In the meantime licensing was clarified:
  http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2013-May/002184.html
> It is not a problem. Just make sure it isn't in the binary rpms.
> You do not need to regenerate the source tarball.
> The License: field reflects the contents of the binary RPM, not the
> SRPM. The SRPM just needs to be 100% free, and GPLv2 meets that.

So please put back License:        ASL 2.0

Comment 24 Pádraig Brady 2013-05-30 09:46:01 UTC
Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/grizzly-test-rpms/python-subunit.spec
SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/grizzly-test-rpms/python-subunit-0.0.12-5.fc18.src.rpm
Description: A streaming protocol for test result
Fedora Account System Username: pbrady

Comment 25 Alan Pevec (Fedora) 2013-06-03 14:19:00 UTC
tl;dr: APPROVED

Package Review
==============

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

===== 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]: 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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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 %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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
[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).

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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[-]: 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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
[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: python-subunit-0.0.12-5.fc19.noarch.rpm
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit2gtk
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-tags
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tap2subunit
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit2junitxml
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-2to1
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-ls
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-filter
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit2pyunit
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-notify
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-1to2
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-stats
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint python-subunit
python-subunit.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/subunit/tests/TestUtil.py
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit2gtk
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-tags
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tap2subunit
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit2junitxml
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-ls
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-filter
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit2pyunit
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-notify
python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-stats
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 9 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
python-subunit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python
    python(abi)
    python-extras
    python-iso8601
    python-testtools



Provides
--------
python-subunit:
    python-subunit



Source checksums
----------------
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/python-subunit/python-subunit-0.0.12.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 2186662f871cbfb7957b356212e3c96f96946c41b538dc43f278df8798ed36de
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2186662f871cbfb7957b356212e3c96f96946c41b538dc43f278df8798ed36de


Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 908842

Comment 26 Matthias Runge 2013-06-04 08:28:33 UTC
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: python-subunit
Short Description: Python implementation of subunit test streaming protocol
Owners: pbrady mrunge
Branches: f18 f19 el6

Comment 27 Gwyn Ciesla 2013-06-04 12:26:24 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 28 Fedora Update System 2013-06-04 14:14:37 UTC
python-subunit-0.0.12-5.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-subunit-0.0.12-5.fc19

Comment 29 Fedora Update System 2013-06-04 14:36:37 UTC
python-subunit-0.0.12-5.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-subunit-0.0.12-5.fc18

Comment 30 Fedora Update System 2013-06-04 14:44:50 UTC
python-subunit-0.0.12-5.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-subunit-0.0.12-5.el6

Comment 31 Fedora Update System 2013-06-05 00:47:29 UTC
python-subunit-0.0.12-5.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.

Comment 32 Fedora Update System 2013-06-13 06:46:42 UTC
python-subunit-0.0.12-5.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 33 Fedora Update System 2013-06-14 02:24:15 UTC
python-subunit-0.0.12-5.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.

Comment 34 Fedora Update System 2013-06-19 21:35:11 UTC
python-subunit-0.0.12-5.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.

Comment 35 Pádraig Brady 2014-11-11 14:19:36 UTC
Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: python-subunit
New Branches: epel7
Owners: pbrady apevec

Comment 36 Gwyn Ciesla 2014-11-11 15:15:07 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).


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