[Bug 1435921] New: Review Request: python-j1m.sphinxautozconfig - Sphinx support for ZConfig
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1435921
Bug ID: 1435921 Summary: Review Request: python-j1m.sphinxautozconfig - Sphinx support for ZConfig Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: loganjerry@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-j1m.sphinxautozconfig/python-j1m.sphi... SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-j1m.sphinxautozconfig/python-j1m.sphi... Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: This sphinx extension provides a zconfigsectionkeys directive for rendering documentation for ZConfig section key.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1435921
Antonio Trande anto.trande@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |anto.trande@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1435921
--- Comment #1 from Antonio Trande anto.trande@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
- License file is not installed - setup.py does not run any test - Please, remove egg-info files from upstream http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Eggs#Upstream_Egg_Packages - Different spec file in url and in SRPM
===== 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. [-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 24 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1435921-python- j1m.sphinxautozconfig/licensecheck.txt [!]: 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/python3.6/site- packages, /usr/lib/python3.6 [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. [-]: 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]: 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 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. [!]: 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-j1m.sphinxautozconfig , python3-j1m.sphinxautozconfig [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python2-j1m.sphinxautozconfig-0.1.0-1.fc27.noarch.rpm python3-j1m.sphinxautozconfig-0.1.0-1.fc27.noarch.rpm python-j1m.sphinxautozconfig-0.1.0-1.fc27.src.rpm python2-j1m.sphinxautozconfig.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zconfigsectioneys -> confectionery python3-j1m.sphinxautozconfig.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zconfigsectioneys -> confectionery python-j1m.sphinxautozconfig.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zconfigsectioneys -> confectionery 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-j1m.sphinxautozconfig.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zconfigsectioneys -> confectionery python2-j1m.sphinxautozconfig.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zconfigsectioneys -> confectionery 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/sagitter/1435921-python-j1m.sphinxautozconfig/srpm/python-j1m.sphinxautozconfig.spec 2017-03-26 12:36:46.435381266 +0200 +++ /home/sagitter/1435921-python-j1m.sphinxautozconfig/srpm-unpacked/python-j1m.sphinxautozconfig.spec 2017-03-25 20:59:10.000000000 +0100 @@ -26,5 +26,5 @@
%description -This sphinx extension provides a zconfigsectionkeys directive for +This sphinx extension provides a zconfigsectioneys directive for rendering documentation for ZConfig section key.
@@ -36,5 +36,5 @@
%description -n python2-%{srcname} -This sphinx extension provides a zconfigsectionkeys directive for +This sphinx extension provides a zconfigsectioneys directive for rendering documentation for ZConfig section key.
@@ -47,5 +47,5 @@
%description -n python3-%{srcname} -This sphinx extension provides a zconfigsectionkeys directive for +This sphinx extension provides a zconfigsectioneys directive for rendering documentation for ZConfig section key. %endif
Requires -------- python3-j1m.sphinxautozconfig (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-docutils
python2-j1m.sphinxautozconfig (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python2-docutils
Provides -------- python3-j1m.sphinxautozconfig: python3-j1m.sphinxautozconfig python3.6dist(j1m.sphinxautozconfig) python3dist(j1m.sphinxautozconfig)
python2-j1m.sphinxautozconfig: python-j1m.sphinxautozconfig python2-j1m.sphinxautozconfig python2.7dist(j1m.sphinxautozconfig) python2dist(j1m.sphinxautozconfig)
Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/j/j1m.sphinxautozconfig/j1m.s... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 18632d27238e5eccad2aba2f80575a1587a30711049442782841da7934aea5c8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 18632d27238e5eccad2aba2f80575a1587a30711049442782841da7934aea5c8
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1435921 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1435921
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Thank you again for the review.
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #1)
- License file is not installed
- setup.py does not run any test
- Please, remove egg-info files from upstream http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Eggs#Upstream_Egg_Packages
Same reply to these three items as for bug 1435920.
- Different spec file in url and in SRPM
Uh oh. How did I manage to do that? Well, it is late and I am tired, so I will fix this tomorrow.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1435921
Antonio Trande anto.trande@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |loganjerry@gmail.com Flags| |needinfo?(loganjerry@gmail. | |com)
--- Comment #3 from Antonio Trande anto.trande@gmail.com --- Still interested?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1435921
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(loganjerry@gmail. | |com) |
--- Comment #4 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Yes. Again, my apologies for the long silence. I have commented out the %check script and asked upstream about the license file. New URLs:
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-j1m.sphinxautozconfig/python-j1m.sphi... SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-j1m.sphinxautozconfig/python-j1m.sphi...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1435921
Antonio Trande anto.trande@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(loganjerry@gmail. | |com)
--- Comment #5 from Antonio Trande anto.trande@gmail.com --- Any news?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1435921
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(loganjerry@gmail. | |com) |
--- Comment #6 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- No, I have not had any response from upstream. Can we proceed without a license file, since that is a SHOULD and not a MUST?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1435921
--- Comment #7 from Antonio Trande anto.trande@gmail.com --- (In reply to Jerry James from comment #6)
No, I have not had any response from upstream. Can we proceed without a license file, since that is a SHOULD and not a MUST?
From Licensing guidelines (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text):
However, in situations where upstream is unresponsive, unable, or unwilling to provide proper full license text as part of the source code, and the indicated license requires that the full license text be included, Fedora Packagers must either:
Include a copy of what they believe the license text is intended to be, as part of the Fedora package in %license, in order to remain in compliance. It is worth noting that this may place some additional risk on the packager, however, Fedora believes that this risk is minimized by the fact that if the upstream disagrees with what we have distributed as the full license text, they can easily remedy this by making full license text available in the source code. Packagers who choose to do this should ensure that they have exhausted all attempts to work with upstream to include the license text as part of the source code, or at least, to confirm the full license text explicitly with the upstream, as this minimizes the risk on the packager. Packagers should also take copies of license texts from reliable and canonical sources (such as the Fedora Software Licenses page, the FSF licenses page, or the OSI license list), whenever possible.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1435921
--- Comment #8 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- I have created the license file as requested. New URLs:
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-j1m.sphinxautozconfig/python-j1m.sphi... SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-j1m.sphinxautozconfig/python-j1m.sphi...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1435921
--- Comment #9 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Ping.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1435921
--- Comment #10 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- There has been no response from the reviewer for 1 month. In accordance with https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews, I ask the reviewer to please respond in the next 1 week.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1435921
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEW Assignee|anto.trande@gmail.com |nobody@fedoraproject.org Flags|fedora-review? |
--- Comment #11 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- More than a week has passed. I have also sent two emails to Antonio with no response. In accordance with the policy mentioned in comment 10, I am setting this package back to unreviewed status.
Note to future reviewers: although python 2 has been deprecated for F30+, I still need the python 2 version of this package to build documentation for existing stable releases of Fedora. Please review it with the python 2 bits in. I will remove them from Rawhide after importing the package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1435921
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com
--- Comment #12 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- What's the rationale for splitting the Python 2 and Python 3 into separate directory?
%autosetup -c mv %{srcname}-%{version} python2 cp -p %{SOURCE1} python2
%if %{with python3} cp -a python2 python3 %endif
It shouldn't be needed.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1435921
--- Comment #13 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Also using %{python2_sitelib}/* / %{python3_sitelib}/* is now forbidden. Be more precise instead.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1435921
--- Comment #14 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #12)
What's the rationale for splitting the Python 2 and Python 3 into separate directory?
I don't even remember any more. :-) You are right; it is not needed. I have removed that.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #13)
Also using %{python2_sitelib}/* / %{python3_sitelib}/* is now forbidden. Be more precise instead.
Again showing the age of this review request. I have made the %files sections more precise.
New URLs: Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-j1m.sphinxautozconfig/python-j1m.sphi... SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-j1m.sphinxautozconfig/python-j1m.sphi...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1435921
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #15 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Package is approved.
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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-j1m.sphinxautozconfig/review-python- j1m.sphinxautozconfig/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python2.7/site- packages/j1m(python2-j1m.sphinxautointerface) [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. [-]: 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 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]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [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-j1m.sphinxautozconfig , python3-j1m.sphinxautozconfig [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [-]: 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-j1m.sphinxautozconfig-0.1.0-3.fc30.noarch.rpm python3-j1m.sphinxautozconfig-0.1.0-3.fc30.noarch.rpm python-j1m.sphinxautozconfig-0.1.0-3.fc30.src.rpm python2-j1m.sphinxautozconfig.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zconfigsectionkeys -> reconfiguration python3-j1m.sphinxautozconfig.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zconfigsectionkeys -> reconfiguration python-j1m.sphinxautozconfig.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zconfigsectionkeys -> reconfiguration 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1435921
--- Comment #16 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-j1m.sphinxautozconfig
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1435921
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-j1m.sphinxautozconfig-0.1.0-3.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-89f91e43d4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1435921
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-j1m.sphinxautozconfig-0.1.0-3.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-1b08295e93
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1435921
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-j1m.sphinxautozconfig-0.1.0-3.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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-2018-1b08295e93
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1435921
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-j1m.sphinxautozconfig-0.1.0-3.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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-2018-89f91e43d4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1435921
Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mhroncok@redhat.com
--- Comment #21 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- Note that python2 is deprecated and hence a package with adds new python2-... package should have not been approved. This is quite new thing.
Robert-André, I see you so a lot of reviews, could you please check that next time so we don't get new python2 packages at the same time we are trying to mass remove the old ones? Thanks.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1435921
--- Comment #22 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- I wasn't sure of the new policy, I will take care of that in the future. But what if it's a Py2 only package or a cli tool with Py2 lib dependencies? Should I refuse them?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1435921
--- Comment #23 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- Thank You. Yes. In case you find it really useful to have it, you can ask FPC for an exception.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1435921
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2018-09-23 14:29:37
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-j1m.sphinxautozconfig-0.1.0-3.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1435921
--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-j1m.sphinxautozconfig-0.1.0-3.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com