[Bug 862853] Review Request: python-odict - Ordered dictionary

Thu Oct 4 19:49:14 UTC 2012

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862853

Eduardo Echeverria <echevemaster at gmail.com> changed:

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

--- Comment #12 from Eduardo Echeverria <echevemaster at gmail.com> ---
Again, excuse me, and thank you for your patience:

Koji Build Rawhide (OK)
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4560545

Koji Build F18 (OK)
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4560565

Koji Build F17 (OK)
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4560740

Koji Build F16 (OK)
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4560837

Koji Build EL5 (with rpmbuild-md5) (OK)
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4560854

Koji Build EL6 (OK)
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4560841

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

Key:
[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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
     supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[-]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
     Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: %defattr present but not needed
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[-]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[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 %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/makerpm/862853-python-odict/licensecheck.txt
Python License
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
     Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
     in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.

Python:
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: Buildroot is not present
     Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
[-]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
     Note: %clean present but not required
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
     --requires).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[+]: Latest version is packaged.
[+]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
     Note: Source0 (odict-1.5.0.tar.gz)
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/PythonNamingDependingOnImplementation
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: 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.
Test Upstream is broken
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.

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

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python-odict-1.5.0-4.fc17.noarch.rpm
          python-odict-1.5.0-4.fc17.src.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint python-odict
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'

Requires
--------
python-odict-1.5.0-4.fc17.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

    python(abi) = 2.7
    python2  

Provides
--------
python-odict-1.5.0-4.fc17.noarch.rpm:

    python-odict = 1.5.0-4.fc17

MD5-sum check
-------------
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/o/odict/odict-1.5.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
5f102f7545364348b8a2b3312d32541f1e1c6911d762e9a6a568f82b17a5edd5
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
5f102f7545364348b8a2b3312d32541f1e1c6911d762e9a6a568f82b17a5edd5

----------------

PACKAGE APPROVED

----------------

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.