[Bug 790538] New: Review Request: python-liblarch - Data structures helper library for python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: python-liblarch - Data structures helper library for python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790538
Summary: Review Request: python-liblarch - Data structures helper library for python Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: yaneti@declera.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: ---
Spec URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/python-liblarch/python-liblarch.spec SRPM URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/python-liblarch/python-liblarch-0.1.0-1.fc18.src.... Description: Liblarch is a python library built to easily handle data structure such as lists, trees and directed acyclic graphs.
Needed by latest Getting Things Gnome! development.
python-liblarch.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US acyclic -> cyclic, a cyclic, acyclovir 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790538
Yanko Kaneti yaneti@declera.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |790540
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790538
Yanko Kaneti yaneti@declera.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |794537
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790538
Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |mail@fabian-affolter.ch AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mail@fabian-affolter.ch Flag| |fedora-review?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790538
--- Comment #1 from Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch 2012-03-04 12:24:30 EST ---
Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated
==== Generic ==== [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 All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [-]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required [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. [x]: 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 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 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. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [!]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. 'BuildRequires: python2-devel' instead of python-devel https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires It's no longer needed to define the sitelib https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [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 Requires correct, justified where necessary. [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint python-liblarch-0.1.0-1.fc18.src.rpm
python-liblarch.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US acyclic -> cyclic, a cyclic, acyclovir 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
rpmlint python-liblarch-0.1.0-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
python-liblarch.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US acyclic -> cyclic, a cyclic, acyclovir 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/fab/Documents/repos/FedoraReview/790538/liblarch-0.1.0.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : 453921070ac2488ad1ae53b68a40a968 MD5SUM upstream package : 453921070ac2488ad1ae53b68a40a968
[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 a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: 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. [-]: 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 Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Issues: [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint python-liblarch-0.1.0-1.fc18.src.rpm
python-liblarch.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US acyclic -> cyclic, a cyclic, acyclovir 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
rpmlint python-liblarch-0.1.0-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
python-liblarch.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US acyclic -> cyclic, a cyclic, acyclovir 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Generated by fedora-review 0.1.2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790538
--- Comment #2 from Yanko Kaneti yaneti@declera.com 2012-03-06 04:46:26 EST --- Thanks for the review.
Spec URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/python-liblarch/python-liblarch.spec SRPM URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/python-liblarch/python-liblarch-0.1.0-2.fc18.src....
- 0.1.0-2 - Address review. BR python2-devel. No sitelib definition.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790538
Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch 2012-03-06 14:33:02 EST --- I see no further blocker, package APPROVED.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790538
Yanko Kaneti yaneti@declera.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #4 from Yanko Kaneti yaneti@declera.com 2012-03-06 15:38:34 EST --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-liblarch Short Description: Data structures helper library for python Owners: yaneti Branches: f16 f17 InitialCC:
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790538
--- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com 2012-03-06 16:25:46 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790538
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790538
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-06 17:05:23 EST --- python-liblarch-0.1.0-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-liblarch-0.1.0-2.fc17
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790538
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-07 02:19:42 EST --- python-liblarch-0.1.0-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790538
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |python-liblarch-0.1.0-2.fc1 | |7 Resolution| |ERRATA Last Closed| |2012-03-11 12:58:18
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-11 12:58:18 EDT --- python-liblarch-0.1.0-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla