Issues
======
- fix spelling in %description: arabic -> Arabic
- 'If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
  must be documented in the spec.'
  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios

Suggestions
===========
- package the new 4.7.6 version instead of 4.7.4
- the tqdm command should have a man page
- the CONTRIBUTE file should be included - I think it could be considered documentation

(In reply to Ondřej Lysoněk from comment #1)
> Issues
> ======
> - fix spelling in %description: arabic -> Arabic
ok
> - 'If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
>   must be documented in the spec.'
upstream writes what is licensed under what, so don't see problem here
>  
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:
> LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios
> 
> Suggestions
> ===========
> - package the new 4.7.6 version instead of 4.7.4
well, time between I sent this request and today was quite long ;) will fix.
> - the tqdm command should have a man page
feel free to write one ;)
> - the CONTRIBUTE file should be included - I think it could be considered
> documentation
it's completely useless from my POV

Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-tqdm.spec
SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-tqdm-4.7.6-1.fc24.src.rpm

(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #2)
> > - 'If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
> >   must be documented in the spec.'
> upstream writes what is licensed under what, so don't see problem here

Well, I'm just (blindly) following the guidelines here and it says that there should be some note about this in the spec. For example, they suggest:

[quote]
Including a file as %license which contains the licensing breakdown for the packaged files, then using: 

# For a breakdown of the licensing, see PACKAGE-LICENSING 
[end quote]

So just add a reference to the LICENSE file to the spec above the License: field and we're good here.

(In reply to Ondřej Lysoněk from comment #4)
> (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #2)
> > > - 'If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
> > >   must be documented in the spec.'
> > upstream writes what is licensed under what, so don't see problem here
> 
> Well, I'm just (blindly) following the guidelines here and it says that
> there should be some note about this in the spec. For example, they suggest:
> 
> [quote]
> Including a file as %license which contains the licensing breakdown for the
> packaged files, then using: 
> 
> # For a breakdown of the licensing, see PACKAGE-LICENSING 
> [end quote]
> 
> So just add a reference to the LICENSE file to the spec above the License:
> field and we're good here.
well, I can do that during import. not going to spend time to fix dummy issue while review. Any blockers? Where's fedora-review+?

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: "*No copyright* MPL (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "MPL
     (v2.0) MIT/X11 (BSD like)". 20 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/makerpm/2/review-python-
     tqdm/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages,
     /usr/lib/python3.5
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.5/site-
     packages, /usr/lib/python3.5
[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 81920 bytes in 10 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 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     python2-tqdm , python3-tqdm
[x]: 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
     architectures.
[x]: %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-tqdm-4.7.6-1.fc25.noarch.rpm
          python3-tqdm-4.7.6-1.fc25.noarch.rpm
          python-tqdm-4.7.6-1.fc25.src.rpm
python2-tqdm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US taqadum -> adumbrate
python2-tqdm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iterable -> alterable, tolerable, iterate
python3-tqdm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US taqadum -> adumbrate
python3-tqdm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iterable -> alterable, tolerable, iterate
python3-tqdm.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tqdm
python-tqdm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US taqadum -> adumbrate
python-tqdm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iterable -> alterable, tolerable, iterate
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
python2-tqdm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US taqadum -> adumbrate
python2-tqdm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iterable -> alterable, tolerable, iterate
python3-tqdm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US taqadum -> adumbrate
python3-tqdm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iterable -> alterable, tolerable, iterate
python3-tqdm.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tqdm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.



Requires
--------
python2-tqdm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)

python3-tqdm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)



Provides
--------
python2-tqdm:
    python-tqdm
    python2-tqdm
    python2.7dist(tqdm)

python3-tqdm:
    python3-tqdm
    python3.5dist(tqdm)



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/tqdm/tqdm/archive/v4.7.6/tqdm-4.7.6.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 5792510a2283a1dff2f62ae613ac291b3926899a16c946887cbbd6cba7fc8320
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5792510a2283a1dff2f62ae613ac291b3926899a16c946887cbbd6cba7fc8320


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n python-tqdm -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 request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-tqdm

python-tqdm-4.8.3-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-f7a52b0e9e

python-tqdm-4.8.3-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-58d5b9b42a

python-tqdm-4.8.3-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-f7a52b0e9e

python-tqdm-4.8.3-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-58d5b9b42a

python-tqdm-4.8.3-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

python-tqdm-4.8.3-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.