https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288610

--- Comment #1 from David Shea dshea@redhat.com --- fedora-review is taking its sweet time, so a couple of comments while that's running:

- might as well just remove %check. The tests aren't hooked up via setup.py, and actually running them requires two more packages not in fedora.

- Any reason you went with the github-generated tarball instead of the sdist from https://pypi.python.org/pypi/lazy-object-proxy ? The MANIFEST has everything it's supposed to have, so the only differences in content are that pypi does not have .gitignore, does have PKG-INFO, and does have a .egg-info directory in src/ (which I think is supposed to be removed in %prep, though the packaging guidelines don't say that anymore for some reason). But anyway, the pypi tarball has a less weird name.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288610

David Shea dshea@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+

--- Comment #3 from David Shea dshea@redhat.com --- Ok here comes some text:

Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines

This is because fedora-review tried to install the -debuginfo package twice for some reason. It installs fine.

- Permissions on files are set properly. Note: See rpmlint output See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions

comments and rpmlint output below.

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

C/C++: [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: Package contains no static executables. [ ]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 38 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/dshea/review-python- lazy-object-proxy/licensecheck.txt

(the LICENSE file, which is BSD, applies to all of those "unknown" licensed files, so it's fine)

[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.

(I mean, I assume it does, it's using the right macros so if it doesn't then not your problem)

[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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]: 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. [-]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2 -lazy-object-proxy , python3-lazy-object-proxy , python-lazy-object- proxy-debuginfo

(I don't even know where fedora-review got this idea but it doesn't make sense)

[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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.

(I mean, I assume it does)

[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.

(see comment 1)

[x]: 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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

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

Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint

(see below)

[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

and here's the rpmlint output:

Rpmlint ------- Checking: python2-lazy-object-proxy-1.2.1-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm python3-lazy-object-proxy-1.2.1-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm python-lazy-object-proxy-debuginfo-1.2.1-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm python-lazy-object-proxy-1.2.1-1.fc24.src.rpm python2-lazy-object-proxy.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/lazy_object_proxy/cext.so 775 python3-lazy-object-proxy.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python3.5/site-packages/lazy_object_proxy/cext.cpython-35m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so 775 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings.

which is complaining about the .so files being installed as 0775 instead of 0755. I don't know *how* they got way, exactly, since we don't do anything special in other packages that compile C modules via setup.py (e.g., pyparted). I was willing to just assume that it was fedora-review doing something weird while driving mock, but you said in IRC you'd fix it with %attr so that sounds fine.

APPROVED.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288610

--- Comment #5 from Brian Lane bcl@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://bcl.fedorapeople.org/python-lazy-object-proxy/python-lazy-object-pro... SRPM URL: https://bcl.fedorapeople.org/python-lazy-object-proxy/python-lazy-object-pro... Description: A fast and thorough lazy object proxy Fedora Account System Username: bcl

Updated with %attr

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288610

Petr Viktorin pviktori@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED CC| |pviktori@redhat.com Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed| |2018-12-06 09:52:53

--- Comment #7 from Petr Viktorin pviktori@redhat.com --- This is in Fedora for a while. Let me close the review request.