[Bug 850750] New: Review Request: python-warlock - Python object model built on top of JSON schema
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850750
Bug ID: 850750 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-warlock - Python object model built on top of JSON schema Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: apevec@gmail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora
Spec URL: http://apevec.fedorapeople.org/python-warlock.spec SRPM URL: http://apevec.fedorapeople.org/python-warlock-0.4.0-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Build self-validating python objects using JSON schemas Fedora Account System Username: apevec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850750
--- Comment #1 from Alan Pevec apevec@gmail.com --- rpmlint output: python-warlock.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US schemas -> schema, sachems, schemes
Given that description is taken from pypi and written by the author, presumably en_US native speaker, I'd waive this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850750
--- Comment #2 from Alan Pevec apevec@gmail.com --- Spec URL: http://apevec.fedorapeople.org/python-warlock.spec SRPM URL: http://apevec.fedorapeople.org/python-warlock-0.4.0-2.fc16.src.rpm
Updated spec: * Wed Aug 22 2012 Alan Pevec apevec@redhat.com 0.4.0-2 - Add missing build requirement
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850750
Matthias Runge mrunge@matthias-runge.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |mrunge@matthias-runge.de Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mrunge@matthias-runge.de Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Runge mrunge@matthias-runge.de --- Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated
==== Generic ==== [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 [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 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. [!]: 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. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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 [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. [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). [?]: 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. [!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0 (warlock-0.4.0.tar.gz) [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. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Issues: [!]: 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. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#ValidLicenseShor...
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-warlock-0.4.0-2.fc19.src.rpm python-warlock-0.4.0-2.fc19.noarch.rpm python-warlock.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US schemas -> schema, sachems, schemes python-warlock.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US schemas -> schema, sachems, schemes 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- python-warlock-0.4.0-2.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
python(abi) = 2.7 python-jsonschema
Provides -------- python-warlock-0.4.0-2.fc19.noarch.rpm:
python-warlock = 0.4.0-2.fc19
MD5-sum check ------------- http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/w/warlock/warlock-0.4.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5f0f62041abe195990bc64d9be09732ff24aaaadfceddc7038108339ea151a14 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5f0f62041abe195990bc64d9be09732ff24aaaadfceddc7038108339ea151a14
Generated by fedora-review 0.2.2 (9f8c0e5) last change: 2012-08-09 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 850750
OK, you should run checks: To do that, add
BuildRequires: python-jsonschema
%check %{__python} setup.py test
I guess, that can also be done during import.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850750
Matthias Runge mrunge@matthias-runge.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Matthias Runge mrunge@matthias-runge.de --- I forgot to add:
Package Approved
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850750
Alan Pevec apevec@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEW Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #5 from Alan Pevec apevec@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-warlock Short Description: Python object model built on top of JSON schema Owners: apevec pbrady mrunge Branches: f18 f17 f16 el6 InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850750
--- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850750
Alan Pevec apevec@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |python-warlock-0.4.0-2.fc18 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? Last Closed| |2012-08-22 10:24:36
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850750
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-warlock-0.4.0-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-warlock-0.4.0-2.fc18
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850750
--- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Unsetting cvs flag.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850750
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-warlock-0.4.0-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-warlock-0.4.0-2.fc17
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850750
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-warlock-0.4.0-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850750
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-warlock-0.4.0-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850750
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-warlock-0.4.0-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-warlock-0.4.0-2.el6
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla