Bug 1329125

Hi Haïkel,

I have found a few issues:

- We have "BuildRequires:  python3-oslotest" in the python2 subpackage section.
- Tests subpackages should require their corresponding main subpackage
- The source requirements.txt file requires enum34 for Python 2.7, but it's not in the package Requires. Is that on purpose?

Everything else looks ok to me.

Is this required by any of clients or is it only service dependency?
If the latter, then we don't really need it in Fedora, only in RDO.

This is not needed for clients. It is a common library for rootwrap stuff.

Imported to https://github.com/rdo-packages/oslo-privsep-distgit
rdoinfo review https://review.rdoproject.org/r/988

Spec URL: https://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-oslo-privsep.spec
SRPM URL: https://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-oslo-privsep-1.5.0-2.fc25.src.rpm

Issues raised were adressed.

Spec URL: https://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-oslo-privsep.spec
SRPM URL: https://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-oslo-privsep-1.13.0-1.fc25.src.rpm

Reassigning to Fedora, some Fedora packages need it.

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

Legend:
[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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache
     (v2.0)". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
     in /tmp/1329125-python-oslo-privsep/licensecheck.txt
[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]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[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 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:
[-]: 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2
     -oslo-privsep , python2-oslo-privsep-tests , python3-oslo-privsep ,
     python3-oslo-privsep-tests , python-oslo-privsep-doc , python-oslo-
     privsep-lang
[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.
[-]: %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: python2-oslo-privsep-1.13.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
          python2-oslo-privsep-tests-1.13.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
          python3-oslo-privsep-1.13.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
          python3-oslo-privsep-tests-1.13.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
          python-oslo-privsep-doc-1.13.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
          python-oslo-privsep-lang-1.13.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
          python-oslo-privsep-1.13.0-1.fc26.src.rpm
python2-oslo-privsep.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary privsep-helper
python2-oslo-privsep-tests.noarch: W: no-documentation
python3-oslo-privsep-tests.noarch: W: no-documentation
python-oslo-privsep-doc.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C oslo.privsep documentation
python-oslo-privsep-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python-oslo-privsep-doc/html/objects.inv
python-oslo-privsep-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/python-oslo-privsep-doc/html/objects.inv
python-oslo-privsep-lang.noarch: W: no-documentation
7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
python-oslo-privsep-doc.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C oslo.privsep documentation
python-oslo-privsep-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python-oslo-privsep-doc/html/objects.inv
python-oslo-privsep-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/python-oslo-privsep-doc/html/objects.inv
python2-oslo-privsep.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary privsep-helper
python3-oslo-privsep-tests.noarch: W: no-documentation
python-oslo-privsep-lang.noarch: W: no-documentation
python2-oslo-privsep-tests.noarch: W: no-documentation
6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.



Requires
--------
python-oslo-privsep-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

python2-oslo-privsep (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python2
    python(abi)
    python-babel
    python-cffi
    python-enum34
    python-msgpack
    python-oslo-config
    python-oslo-i18n
    python-oslo-log
    python-oslo-privsep-lang
    python-oslo-utils

python3-oslo-privsep-tests (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3-oslo-privsep

python3-oslo-privsep (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python-oslo-privsep-lang
    python3-babel
    python3-cffi
    python3-msgpack
    python3-oslo-config
    python3-oslo-i18n
    python3-oslo-log
    python3-oslo-utils

python-oslo-privsep-lang (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

python2-oslo-privsep-tests (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python2-oslo-privsep



Provides
--------
python-oslo-privsep-doc:
    python-oslo-privsep-doc

python2-oslo-privsep:
    python-oslo-privsep
    python2-oslo-privsep
    python2.7dist(oslo.privsep)
    python2dist(oslo.privsep)

python3-oslo-privsep-tests:
    python3-oslo-privsep-tests

python3-oslo-privsep:
    python3-oslo-privsep
    python3.5dist(oslo.privsep)
    python3dist(oslo.privsep)

python-oslo-privsep-lang:
    python-oslo-privsep-lang

python2-oslo-privsep-tests:
    python2-oslo-privsep-tests



Source checksums
----------------
https://pypi.io/packages/source/o/oslo.privsep/oslo.privsep-1.13.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 45e55f5107634939bcbacec879e43a67190001e4e2b108b15753e70cb07ca4ee
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 45e55f5107634939bcbacec879e43a67190001e4e2b108b15753e70cb07ca4ee


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1329125 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

Package is APPROVED, please go ahead with the SCM request.

Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-oslo-privsep

The package hasn't been built yet. Could a build be created in rawhide?

I have created a first rawhide build at https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=859950