[Bug 1318359] Review Request: python-justbases - precise conversion between arbitrary bases

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318359

mulhern  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
Last Closed||2016-03-23 09:44:44



-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1318359] Review Request: python-justbases - precise conversion between arbitrary bases

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318359

Ralph Bean  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #11 from Ralph Bean  ---
Package approved!  (post-facto ;p)

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1318359] Review Request: python-justbases - precise conversion between arbitrary bases

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318359



--- Comment #7 from mulhern  ---
Thanks!

Regarding %check, I'm happier skipping it because:
1. I'm the upstream maintainer and I have good continuous integration. So, I
know the package is well-tested upstream.
2. My tests use the hypothesis testing library which creates a whole database
of tests in a .hypothesis subdirectory. I do not want to make the hypothesis
testing library a BuildRequires, and I don't want to have to worry about the
cleanup afterwards.
3. I can see having some small test, just to make sure that the install hasn't
been a complete failure due to some dependency issue of some sort in %check.
Donning my upstream-maintainer hat, I'll consider how to add that in future,
for the convenience of packagers.

Regarding _isa:
Is it really relevant at all in this case?

Regarding python-six dependency:
I'm the co-maintainer of python-pyudev which is in the same position with six
and just uses Reqires. So, this arrangement works OK.

Regarding spec file typo: Fixed.

Regarding rpm checksum: Fixed.

I uploaded fixed version to prior locations.

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1318359] Review Request: python-justbases - precise conversion between arbitrary bases

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318359



--- Comment #5 from Ralph Bean  ---
Hi mulhern, I found a few issues:



- (must fix) Sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.  See: 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
  There's a difference between what your package claims is the upstream tarball
and what was actually used to build the srpm.  The diff is attached.

- (must fix) You're going to want to add a BuildRequires on python-six and
python3-six I think, otherwise it will try to pull down that package from pypi
in koji (and the koji builders' network settings will disallow that).

- (must fix) The python_provide line in the python3 package has a typo.  It
reads:

%{?python_provide:%python_provide python2-%{srcname}}

  but should be:

%{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{srcname}}

- (optional fix) The project seems to have a test suite included in the
tarball.  If so, it would be nice to run this in a %check section in the rpm
spec (to detect when things break down the road).  This is not mandatory, but
definitely nice to have.



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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 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: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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 is not relocatable.
[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:
[!]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
 process.
 python-six may be a problem here.  Just adding it as a BuildRequires line
 should do it.
[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]: 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).
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: 

[Bug 1318359] Review Request: python-justbases - precise conversion between arbitrary bases

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318359



--- Comment #6 from Ralph Bean  ---
Created attachment 1137144
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1137144=edit
Diff between source tarballs

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1318359] Review Request: python-justbases - precise conversion between arbitrary bases

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318359



--- Comment #4 from Ralph Bean  ---
Filed this ticket on pkgdb to track that behavior: 
https://github.com/fedora-infra/pkgdb2/issues/330

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1318359] Review Request: python-justbases - precise conversion between arbitrary bases

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318359



--- Comment #8 from mulhern  ---
Whoops. Look's like I'll have to do a new upstream release.

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1318359] Review Request: python-justbases - precise conversion between arbitrary bases

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318359



--- Comment #9 from mulhern  ---
Ok. It should be ready now.

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1318359] Review Request: python-justbases - precise conversion between arbitrary bases

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318359



--- Comment #10 from Ralph Bean  ---
Nah, _isa isn't an issue here.  And the %check issue is fine.  I'm in the same
situation with a number of packages (and fwiw, I like running them yet again in
koji to catch flubs on my part, but.. your choice!)

Thanks!  I'll re-review in a moment.

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1318359] Review Request: python-justbases - precise conversion between arbitrary bases

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318359



--- Comment #3 from Ralph Bean  ---
We must have a bug somewhere.  This was never actually reviewed.  Therefore the
pkgdb admin action request for a new pcakage should have failed.

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1318359] Review Request: python-justbases - precise conversion between arbitrary bases

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318359

Ralph Bean  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1318359] Review Request: python-justbases - precise conversion between arbitrary bases

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318359

Ralph Bean  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review?



-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1318359] Review Request: python-justbases - precise conversion between arbitrary bases

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318359



--- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/python-justbases

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review