https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865615
Bug ID: 865615 QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: python-gerrit - Python interface to Gerrit Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: fsimonce@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora
Spec URL: http://fsimonce.fedorapeople.org/python-gerrit/python-gerrit.spec SRPM URL: http://fsimonce.fedorapeople.org/python-gerrit/python-gerrit-0.0.1-1.gita7ff... Description: python-gerrit is a Python interface to Gerrit, a code review system for Git. Fedora Account System Username: fsimonce
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865615
--- Comment #1 from Federico Simoncelli fsimonce@redhat.com --- Scratch Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4584963
No errors/warnings running fedora-review and rpmlint.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865615
Pádraig Brady p@draigbrady.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |p@draigbrady.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |p@draigbrady.com
--- Comment #2 from Pádraig Brady p@draigbrady.com --- I see you've used python2_sitelib. That's a recent addition and not mentioned here at least: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
Also I notice pyp2rpm still uses python_sitelib.
Maybe it's better to stick with that?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865615
Federico Simoncelli fsimonce@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(p@draigbrady.com)
--- Comment #3 from Federico Simoncelli fsimonce@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #2)
I see you've used python2_sitelib. That's a recent addition and not mentioned here at least: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
Also I notice pyp2rpm still uses python_sitelib.
Maybe it's better to stick with that?
The python2_sitelib macro is already present in f17 (the package was primarily built on f17 and then rebuilt against rawhide on koji as requested somewhere in the packaging guidelines).
I don't have strong opinions about it, except the fact that if we change it now (to python_sitelib) we might need to change it later again.
It's up to you.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865615
Pádraig Brady p@draigbrady.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags|needinfo?(p@draigbrady.com) |
--- Comment #4 from Pádraig Brady p@draigbrady.com --- I'd have a slight preference with sticking with python_sitelib, until a global python2/3 transition plan is done
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865615
Federico Simoncelli fsimonce@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(p@draigbrady.com)
--- Comment #5 from Federico Simoncelli fsimonce@redhat.com --- Spec URL: http://fsimonce.fedorapeople.org/python-gerrit/python-gerrit.spec SRPM URL: http://fsimonce.fedorapeople.org/python-gerrit/python-gerrit-0.0.1-2.gita7ff... Description: python-gerrit is a Python interface to Gerrit, a code review system for Git. Fedora Account System Username: fsimonce Scratch Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4585162
* Fri Oct 12 2012 Federico Simoncelli fsimonce@redhat.com - 0.0.1-2.gita7ffd76 - use the python_sitelib macro instead of python2_sitelib
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865615
Pádraig Brady p@draigbrady.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(p@draigbrady.com) | Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Pádraig Brady p@draigbrady.com --- All looks good. Thanks!
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: MUST 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]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters. [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Package is not relocatable. [-]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [x]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [-]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865615
Federico Simoncelli fsimonce@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #7 from Federico Simoncelli fsimonce@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-gerrit Short Description: Python interface to Gerrit Owners: fsimonce Branches: f17 f18 el6 InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865615
--- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865615
Pádraig Brady p@draigbrady.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|p@draigbrady.com |nobody@fedoraproject.org
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla