https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812369 --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> --- - Not need for this if you're including the entire directory afterwards: %dir %{python3_sitelib}/tests %dir %{python3_sitelib}/ssm_cache %dir %{python3_sitelib}/ssm_cache-*.egg-info - You missing the Python provide macro: %package -n python3-%{srcname} Summary: AWS System Manager Parameter Store caching client for Python %{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{srcname}} - You need to add python3-devel as a BR - You need a newline here otherwise it won't run: %if %{with tests} %check %{python3} setup.py test %endif - Tests then fail: + /usr/bin/python3 setup.py test running test WARNING: Testing via this command is deprecated and will be removed in a future version. Users looking for a generic test entry point independent of test runner are encouraged to use tox. running egg_info writing ssm_cache.egg-info/PKG-INFO writing dependency_links to ssm_cache.egg-info/dependency_links.txt writing requirements to ssm_cache.egg-info/requires.txt writing top-level names to ssm_cache.egg-info/top_level.txt reading manifest file 'ssm_cache.egg-info/SOURCES.txt' writing manifest file 'ssm_cache.egg-info/SOURCES.txt' running build_ext tests (unittest.loader._FailedTest) ... ERROR ====================================================================== ERROR: tests (unittest.loader._FailedTest) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ImportError: Failed to import test module: tests Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/lib64/python3.8/unittest/loader.py", line 470, in _find_test_path package = self._get_module_from_name(name) File "/usr/lib64/python3.8/unittest/loader.py", line 377, in _get_module_from_name __import__(name) File "/builddir/build/BUILD/ssm-cache-python-2.9/tests/__init__.py", line 6, in <module> from moto import mock_ssm, mock_secretsmanager ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'moto' ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ran 1 test in 0.000s FAILED (errors=1) Test failed: <unittest.runner.TextTestResult run=1 errors=1 failures=0> error: Test failed: <unittest.runner.TextTestResult run=1 errors=1 failures=0> Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/python3.8/site- packages/ssm_cache See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files ===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 71 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-ssm-cache/review-python-ssm- cache/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.8/site- packages/tests(python3-netssh2, python3-pure-protobuf, minigalaxy, python3-ipmi), /usr/lib/python3.8/site- packages/tests/__pycache__(python3-netssh2, minigalaxy, python3-ipmi) [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 20480 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 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]: 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. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-ssm-cache-2.9-1.fc33.noarch.rpm python-ssm-cache-2.9-1.fc33.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
