package-review April 2019

package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

1 participants
734 discussions

[Bug 1581407] Package Review: python-jaraco-packaging
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 03 Apr '19

03 Apr '19

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1581407 Matthias Runge <mrunge(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

1 0

[Bug 1581407] Package Review: python-jaraco-packaging
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 03 Apr '19

03 Apr '19

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1581407 Matthias Runge <mrunge(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST --- Comment #6 from Matthias Runge <mrunge(a)redhat.com> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: BUILDSTDERR: warning: File listed twice: /usr/bin/upload-package See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files ===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 23 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mrunge/review/1581407-python-jaraco-packaging/licensecheck.txt [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 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]: 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 must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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: [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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: 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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.4.14 starting (python version = 3.7.3)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux disabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled dnf cache Start: cleaning dnf metadata Finish: cleaning dnf metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 1.4.14 INFO: Mock Version: 1.4.14 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/mrunge/review/1581407-python-jaraco-packaging/results/python-jaraco-packaging-6.1-1.fc31.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 31 --disableplugin=local --setopt=deltarpm=False install /home/mrunge/review/1581407-python-jaraco-packaging/results/python-jaraco-packaging-6.1-1.fc31.noarch.rpm Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-jaraco-packaging-6.1-1.fc31.noarch.rpm python-jaraco-packaging-6.1-1.fc31.src.rpm python-jaraco-packaging.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dependency-tree python-jaraco-packaging.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary upload-package 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/j/jaraco.packaging/jaraco.pa… : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 75d6360662ede4405981814bf68a67a4e83d0d943504ee1c7a698d01a7cd357e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 75d6360662ede4405981814bf68a67a4e83d0d943504ee1c7a698d01a7cd357e Requires -------- python-jaraco-packaging (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3-rst-linker python3-setuptools python3-six python3.7dist(setuptools) python3.7dist(six) Provides -------- python-jaraco-packaging: python-jaraco-packaging python3.7dist(jaraco.packaging) python3dist(jaraco.packaging) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.1 (9643194) last change: 2019-03-21 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1581407 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, PHP, R, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, Perl, C/C++, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH One nit: %{_bindir}/upload-package is listed twice in %files. That can be removed during import Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

1 0

[Bug 1581407] Package Review: python-jaraco-packaging
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 03 Apr '19

03 Apr '19

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1581407 Matthias Runge <mrunge(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |mrunge(a)redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

1 0

[Bug 1581404] Package Review: python-rst-linker
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 03 Apr '19

03 Apr '19

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1581404 Matthias Runge <mrunge(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Matthias Runge <mrunge(a)redhat.com> --- Thank you, the package looks good, all the issues I've mentioned are fixed. Package APPROVED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

1 0

[Bug 1581404] Package Review: python-rst-linker
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 03 Apr '19

03 Apr '19

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1581404 --- Comment #11 from Dan Radez <dradez(a)redhat.com> --- New spec and srpm https://radez.fedorapeople.org/python-rst-linker.spec https://radez.fedorapeople.org/python-rst-linker-1.10-1.fc30.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

1 0

[Bug 1545163] Review Request: python-sphinx-click - Sphinx extension that automatically documents click applications
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 03 Apr '19

03 Apr '19

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545163 Honza Horak <hhorak(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |hhorak(a)redhat.com Flags|needinfo?(mcyprian(a)redhat.c | |om) | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

1 0

[Bug 1689634] New: Review Request: mako - Lightweight Wayland notification daemon
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 03 Apr '19

03 Apr '19

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689634 Bug ID: 1689634 Summary: Review Request: mako - Lightweight Wayland notification daemon Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org Reporter: timothee.floure(a)fnux.ch QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://paste.sr.ht/blob/260c51a1e060b20d914b6f5dd228c6b055fe94af SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/80/33560080/mako-1.2-1.fc31.… Description: mako is a lightweight notification daemon for Wayland compositors that support the layer-shell protocol. Fedora Account System Username: fnux -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

1 15

[Bug 1649059] Review Request: golang-contrib-opencensus-exporter-ocagent - OpenCensus Go exporters for OpenCensus Agent
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 03 Apr '19

03 Apr '19

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649059 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- golang-contrib-opencensus-exporter-ocagent-0.4.10-1.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-2019-609c9f1cc9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

1 0

[Bug 1649059] Review Request: golang-contrib-opencensus-exporter-ocagent - OpenCensus Go exporters for OpenCensus Agent
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 03 Apr '19

03 Apr '19

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649059 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- golang-contrib-opencensus-exporter-ocagent-0.4.10-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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-2019-35b3da2d7d -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

1 0

[Bug 1450590] Review Request: watchman - a file watching service
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 02 Apr '19

02 Apr '19

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450590 --- Comment #21 from Jon Dufresne <jon.dufresne(a)gmail.com> --- Should this be closed as a duplicate of Bug 1564720? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

1 0

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

package-review April 2019