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 1659759 - Review Request: python-slacker - Slack API client
Summary: Review Request: python-slacker - Slack API client
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Javier Peña
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
Blocks: 1645723
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2018-12-16 07:34 UTC by Raphael Groner
Modified: 2019-05-24 13:58 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version: python-slacker-0.12.0-3.el7
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2019-01-06 02:50:43 UTC
Type: ---
jpena: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Raphael Groner 2018-12-16 07:34:04 UTC
Spec URL:


Slacker is a full-featured Python interface for the Slack API.

Comment 2 Javier Peña 2018-12-18 12:35:37 UTC
There are two small details to fix:

- The package has no Requires at all. A quick look at shows that we should include python-requests as a requirement.
- fedora-review is complaining that /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/slacker/ is a non-executable script. It includes a python2 shebang (#!/usr/bin/python) even in the python3 subpackage. Could you remove the shebang?

Once those issues are fixed, it should be good to go (I'll take care of running fedora-review then).

Comment 3 Raphael Groner 2018-12-18 14:43:05 UTC
Hi Javier, thanks for your interest and the hints.

> - The package has no Requires at all.

%?python_enable_dependency_generator should auto-generate those dependencies from BuildRequires into the binary package. Maybe this macro fails, I've seen no magic auto-generation as well with another package. FTM It seems better to manually add all dependencies explicitly.

> Could you remove the shebang?

Yes, that's right. I'll add a scriplet.

Comment 4 Raphael Groner 2018-12-18 16:10:02 UTC

* Tue Dec 18 2018 Raphael Groner <> - 0.12.0-2
- drop useless shebang
- add explicitly runtime dependency

Comment 5 Javier Peña 2018-12-18 16:42:15 UTC
Thanks for the updates.

Package Review

[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

===== 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.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Apache (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Apache", "Unknown or
     generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 11 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/1659759-python-
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.7/site-
     packages, /usr/lib/python3.7
[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
[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 10240 bytes in 1 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 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.
[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 =====

[-]: 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
     python3-slacker , python-slacker-doc
[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
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[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]: 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 =====

[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.

Checking: python3-slacker-0.12.0-2.fc30.noarch.rpm
python-slacker-doc.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/doc/python-slacker-doc/examples/ /usr/bin/env python
python-slacker-doc.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/doc/python-slacker-doc/examples/ /usr/bin/env python
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
Cannot parse rpmlint output:

python3-slacker (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

python-slacker-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Source checksums
---------------- :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 7c96fd98ea1c56a04128744800ba35b13e7280c736de77bd805e8a1e5f27b66f
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7c96fd98ea1c56a04128744800ba35b13e7280c736de77bd805e8a1e5f27b66f

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1659759 -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

Review notes:

- The rpmlint complaints about wrong-script-interpreter do not apply, since those are just examples in the -doc subpackage.

The package is APPROVED.

Comment 6 Raphael Groner 2018-12-18 16:44:36 UTC
Thanks, too.

[builder@builder29]~% fedpkg request-repo python-slacker 1659759   
[builder@builder29]~% fedpkg request-branch --repo python-slacker epel7

Comment 7 Gwyn Ciesla 2018-12-18 16:46:20 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2018-12-18 18:01:24 UTC
python-slacker-0.12.0-2.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.

Comment 9 Raphael Groner 2018-12-18 18:02:32 UTC
Imported and build in rawhide and epel7. Thanks again for the help.

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2018-12-19 00:47:41 UTC
python-slacker-0.12.0-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 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 11 Fedora Update System 2019-01-06 02:50:43 UTC
python-slacker-0.12.0-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 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.