Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at
Bug 1288886 (python-portalocker) - Review Request: python-portalocker - Library to provide an easy API to file locking
Summary: Review Request: python-portalocker - Library to provide an easy API to file l...
Alias: python-portalocker
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: William Moreno
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
Blocks: fedora-neuro 1288893
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2015-12-06 21:58 UTC by Igor Gnatenko
Modified: 2016-06-30 21:28 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2016-06-30 21:28:08 UTC
Type: ---
williamjmorenor: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Igor Gnatenko 2015-12-06 21:58:23 UTC
Spec URL:
Description: Library to provide an easy API to file locking.
Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain

Comment 1 Jeremy Cline 2015-12-10 02:47:34 UTC
Hi Igor,

My package review is informal, as I am working towards becoming a maintainer.

1) Nitpicky, but the %description is pretty barebones. I poked around the project documentation, but I didn't see a great description in them, either. Still, it'd be nice to expand it a bit.

I couldn't find anything else wrong, so either I'm not very good, or well done on your part!

Comment 3 Upstream Release Monitoring 2015-12-10 23:49:35 UTC
williamjmorenor's scratch build of python-portalocker-0.5.4-1.gitb0de666.fc24.src.rpm for rawhide completed

Comment 4 Igor Gnatenko 2015-12-12 12:18:27 UTC
(In reply to William Moreno from comment #2)
> Test builds: 
> 146960/

I dont care about fedora22 and el7. I am only taking care about f23+.

Please do review and we will move to next package.

Comment 5 William Moreno 2015-12-14 17:56:11 UTC
Package Review

1. The spec file in the url if not the same than the spec in the src.rpm
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Upload a new src.rpm a be sure to update the spec link.

2. Upstream Provides a Sphinx doc than you should build and include in a -doc subpackage.

Take a look at the bundleds, this is not a bloquer but it is usefull for users, also if you build the docs use weak depencies to suggest the doc subpackage

===== MUST items =====
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[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.
[x]: 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
[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
[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.
[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
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[ ]: 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 =====

[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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: 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
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[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
[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 =====
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.

Checking: python2-portalocker-0.5.4-1.gitb0de666.fc23.noarch.rpm
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
--- /home/makerpm/1288886-python-portalocker/srpm/python-portalocker.spec	2015-12-10 23:33:42.895000000 +0000
+++ /home/makerpm/1288886-python-portalocker/srpm-unpacked/python-portalocker.spec	2015-12-06 21:56:02.000000000 +0000
@@ -68,4 +68,4 @@
-* Sun Dec 06 2015 Igor Gnatenko <i.gnatenko.brain> - 0.5.4-1.gitb0de666
+* Sun Dec 06 2015 Igor Gnatenko <i.gnatenko.brain> - 0.5.4-1
 - Initial package

python2-portalocker (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

python3-portalocker (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Source checksums
---------------- :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : beaa43f20f5153454210e0f1ad0f7946fc3dba9330ea48b2a53edbfd15ead2b7
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : beaa43f20f5153454210e0f1ad0f7946fc3dba9330ea48b2a53edbfd15ead2b7

Comment 6 William Moreno 2016-03-11 14:35:16 UTC
Any update here?

Comment 7 Igor Gnatenko 2016-03-27 15:36:21 UTC
Sorry, didn't have time.

I will look into your comments. Regarding difference of srpm/spec its really minor issue ;)

Comment 8 William Moreno 2016-04-19 20:06:40 UTC
Just provide the doc subpackage, can be realle usefull.

Comment 9 William Moreno 2016-06-15 21:21:16 UTC

Comment 11 William Moreno 2016-06-21 17:22:23 UTC
Package aproved

Comment 12 Gwyn Ciesla 2016-06-21 19:10:04 UTC
Package request has been approved:

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2016-06-21 19:43:18 UTC
python-portalocker-0.5.6-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2016-06-22 23:03:22 UTC
python-portalocker-0.5.6-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:

Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2016-06-30 21:28:06 UTC
python-portalocker-0.5.6-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.