https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1525570 Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #13 from Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> --- > Tool to manage multiple virtualenvs written in pure python Please use uppercase P for Python. > # Add pytest marker to test requiring connection > Patch0: 0001-tests-connection-marker-fix.patch Is this posted upstream? Package is APPROVED. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=24266546 [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. [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 30720 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 must own all directories that it creates. [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]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. (I've checked Koji, had some local troubles) [-]: 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. [?]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. Unsure here. [-]: 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. [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: pew-1.1.2-1.fc28.noarch.rpm pew-1.1.2-1.fc27.src.rpm pew.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) virtualenvs -> virtual pew.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pew pew.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) virtualenvs -> virtual 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Bogus. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory pew.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) virtualenvs -> virtual pew.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/berdario/pew <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> pew.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pew 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Bogus. Manpage maybe, but nobody cares. Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/churchyard/rpmbuild/FedoraReview/pew/pew.spec 2018-01-18 12:36:02.445037000 +0100 +++ /home/churchyard/rpmbuild/FedoraReview/pew/review-pew/srpm-unpacked/pew.spec 2017-12-20 12:48:53.000000000 +0100 @@ -26,8 +26,8 @@ %{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{name}} +Requires: python3dist(pythonz-bd) >= 1.10.2 Requires: python3dist(setuptools) >= 17.1 Requires: python3dist(virtualenv) >= 1.11 Requires: python3dist(virtualenv-clone) >= 0.2.5 -Requires: python3dist(pythonz-bd) >= 1.10.2 %description Not bad. Whatever order you prefer. Requires -------- pew (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) = 3.6 python3dist(pythonz-bd) >= 1.10.2 python3dist(setuptools) >= 17.1 python3dist(virtualenv) >= 1.11 python3dist(virtualenv-clone) >= 0.2.5 Provides -------- pew: pew = 1.1.2-1.fc28 python3.6dist(pew) = 1.1.2 python3dist(pew) = 1.1.2 Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/berdario/pew/archive/1.1.2/pew-1.1.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5e8c14523b81e37a0a856103705cdbdd8592656018baa2a4b69f8cfdfc738d42 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5e8c14523b81e37a0a856103705cdbdd8592656018baa2a4b69f8cfdfc738d42 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
