This package built on koji:  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4951967

Hi Ralph,

So this is a fork of python-chardet that lots of the fedora tools depends on.
Is the fork warranted or required for Fedora?
I notice that python-charade includes bin/charade which seems useful.

I see debian review here mentioning chardet thing too:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=698258

Only issue I found with the package itself is
should the licence be LGPLV2+ rather than LGPLV2 ?

Full output from fedora-review below...

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

Key:
[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]: 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.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     python3-charade
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* LGPL
     (v2.1 or later)". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/padraig/910236-python-charade/licensecheck.txt
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
     Note: Documentation size is 81920 bytes in 6 files.
[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]: 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.
[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.
[-]: 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
     architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[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-charade-1.0.3-1.fc15.noarch.rpm
          python3-charade-1.0.3-1.fc15.noarch.rpm
python-charade.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary charade
python3-charade.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary python3-charade
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint python3-charade python-charade
python3-charade.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
python3-charade.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary python3-charade
python-charade.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary charade
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
python3-charade (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)

python-charade (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python
    python(abi)



Provides
--------
python3-charade:
    python3-charade

python-charade:
    python-charade



MD5-sum check
-------------
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/c/charade/charade-1.0.3.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : a607146d151005904f3fd8335e3dc89af214453f0d3a29580e1eb0e67e6c3d7f
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a607146d151005904f3fd8335e3dc89af214453f0d3a29580e1eb0e67e6c3d7f


Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29
Buildroot used: fedora-15-x86_64
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 910236

Hi Pádraig,

The purpose of the fork is for python2/python3 support and it was originally bundled in python-requests (along with many other things):

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904623

I think you're right about the license; the file headers state lgplv2 or later.

Here's a new release reflecting that:

Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-charade.spec
SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-charade-1.0.3-2.fc18.src.rpm

Ok cool. So the debian bug says that requests works with python3-chardet, and that's available in Fedora. On the face of it, it seems that getting requests to use that would be more appealing.

I agree.  Let's sink this pull request then and try to get that in order.  I'll close as wontfix.