[Bug 1372836] New: Review Request: python-hug - A Python framework that makes developing APIs simple - package-review

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

[Bug 1372836] New: Review Request: python-hug - A Python framework that makes developing APIs simple

older

[Bug 1426987] New: Review...

[Bug 1458394] New: Re-Review...

Red Hat Bugzilla

2 Sep 2016 2 Sep '16

3:35 p.m.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372836

Bug ID: 1372836 Summary: Review Request: python-hug - A Python framework that makes developing APIs simple Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: karlthered@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

Spec URL: https://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-hug.spec SRPM URL: https://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-hug-2.1.2-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: A Python framework that makes developing APIs simple Fedora Account System Username: hguemar

-- 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

Show replies by thread

Red Hat Bugzilla

2 Nov 2 Nov

9:50 a.m.

New subject: [Bug 1372836] Review Request: python-hug - A Python framework that makes developing APIs simple

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372836

Iryna Shcherbina ishcherb@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ishcherb@redhat.com

--- Comment #1 from Iryna Shcherbina ishcherb@redhat.com --- Hi Haïkel,

This is an informal review, as I cannot approve the package until I am sponsored, but I would like to point your attention to a couple of issues I have noticed:

* 2.1.2 is not the latest version. hug 2.2.0 is already available on pypi (https://pypi.python.org/pypi/hug/). And you can now include %doc and %license (as your PR was merged and went into the release).

* You can use files.pythonhosted.org for the Source0 url to conform to SourceUrl guidelines for pypi packages (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL#Py...).

* You can use `Summary: %{summary}` macro in your python3- subpackage, which will contain the content of the first Summary tag.

* What is the purpose of python3-mock and python3-pytest in BuildRequires?

I hope my review was helpful.

-- 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

Red Hat Bugzilla

3 Nov 3 Nov

3:52 a.m.

New subject: [Bug 1372836] Review Request: python-hug - A Python framework that makes developing APIs simple

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372836

hguemar@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |hguemar@redhat.com

--- Comment #2 from hguemar@redhat.com --- 1. it was latest when review was opened, I have now other people interested in, so I'll update it. 2. pypi.io is also an accepted Source URL. 3. Yeah 3. running tests but that needed some fixing, I need to recheck now that 2.2.0 is out.

-- 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

Red Hat Bugzilla

4:52 a.m.

New subject: [Bug 1372836] Review Request: python-hug - A Python framework that makes developing APIs simple

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372836

--- Comment #3 from Haïkel Guémar karlthered@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-hug.spec SRPM URL: https://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-hug-2.2.0-1.fc25.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

Red Hat Bugzilla

12:11 p.m.

New subject: [Bug 1372836] Review Request: python-hug - A Python framework that makes developing APIs simple

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372836

--- Comment #4 from Iryna Shcherbina ishcherb@redhat.com --- Hello Haïkel,

thank you for the response and updates. However, the SpecURL link you've provided still holds the spec file for 2.1.2 hug version.

The spec file provided in the srpm looks good, but I still have a couple of suggestions:

1) Please use macro instead of a hardcoded name in the %files section:

...

%{_bindir}/hug

change to

`%{_bindir}/%{pypi_name}`

2) Please consider using %{summary} macro for the summary in your python3- subpackage:

...

Summary: A Python framework that makes developing APIs as simple as possible, but no simpler

change to

`Summary: %{summary}`

This will fix the following rpmlint error: `python3-hug.noarch: E: summary-too-long C A Python framework that makes developing APIs as simple as possible, but no simpler`

3) Please fix another rpmlint error in the python3- subpackage %description section. You might just copy the main description. `python3-hug.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C A Python framework that makes developing APIs as simple as possible, but no simpler`

4) Please include the `%doc README.md` in the %files section. It is now also available, after your PR was merged, and it will fix the ugly `python3-hug.noarch: W: no-documentation` warning.

5) Can I ask you, what was the problem with tests and if it was fixed?

6) Also, I do not see the purpose of `BuildRequires: python3-falcon = 1.0.0`. Is it required to build the RPM?

Apart from the above, everything looks good to me.

Package Review ==============

Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

===== 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. [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]: 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 must own all directories that it creates. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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]: 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). [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: [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: python3-hug-2.2.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm python-hug-2.2.0-1.fc24.src.rpm python3-hug.noarch: E: summary-too-long C A Python framework that makes developing APIs as simple as possible, but no simpler python3-hug.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C A Python framework that makes developing APIs as simple as possible, but no simpler python3-hug.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-hug.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hug 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory python3-hug.noarch: E: summary-too-long C A Python framework that makes developing APIs as simple as possible, but no simpler python3-hug.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C A Python framework that makes developing APIs as simple as possible, but no simpler python3-hug.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-hug.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hug 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings.

Requires -------- python3-hug (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3-falcon python3-requests python3-setuptools

Provides -------- python3-hug: python3-hug

Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.io/packages/source/h/hug/hug-2.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4a8bef50c54bb07eb2fb976c55ac260095f64e2e15b31fae9130c3e1a6176439 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4a8bef50c54bb07eb2fb976c55ac260095f64e2e15b31fae9130c3e1a6176439

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1372836 Buildroot used: fedora-24-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

Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16283954

-- 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

Red Hat Bugzilla

1:28 p.m.

New subject: [Bug 1372836] Review Request: python-hug - A Python framework that makes developing APIs simple

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372836

--- Comment #5 from Haïkel Guémar karlthered@gmail.com --- 0. spec URL is 2.2.0, maybe a cache issue 1. yes but not mandatory 2. I'll shorten it. 3. fixed. 4. ack 5. nope, tests are broken, it's confusing internal module with stdlib one 6. it is required for installation, and it's tied to a specific version of Falcon much like urllib3/requests.

-- 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

Red Hat Bugzilla

7 Nov 7 Nov

8:28 a.m.

New subject: [Bug 1372836] Review Request: python-hug - A Python framework that makes developing APIs simple

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372836

Iryna Shcherbina ishcherb@redhat.com changed:

-- 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

Red Hat Bugzilla

8 Nov 8 Nov

8:22 a.m.

New subject: [Bug 1372836] Review Request: python-hug - A Python framework that makes developing APIs simple

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372836

--- Comment #6 from Iryna Shcherbina ishcherb@redhat.com --- (In reply to Haïkel Guémar from comment #5)

...

I'll shorten it.

fixed.

ack

Hi Haïkel,

are you going to push the updates for the above changes? I do not see the changes in the linked files. Let me know if any help needed.

-- 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

Red Hat Bugzilla

22 Nov 22 Nov

11:05 a.m.

New subject: [Bug 1372836] Review Request: python-hug - A Python framework that makes developing APIs simple

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372836

Iryna Shcherbina ishcherb@redhat.com changed:

--- Comment #7 from Iryna Shcherbina ishcherb@redhat.com --- I would like to mention, that I have been sponsored and now I can continue with the formal 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

bugzilla＠redhat.com

20 May 20 May

1:55 p.m.

New subject: [Bug 1372836] Review Request: python-hug - A Python framework that makes developing APIs simple

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372836

--- Comment #8 from Haïkel Guémar karlthered@gmail.com --- Updated to 2.3.0, I switched it to arch-dependent variant to match falcon builds.

Spec URL: https://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-hug.spec SRPM URL: https://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-hug-2.3.0-1.fc26.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

bugzilla＠redhat.com

22 May 22 May

8:20 a.m.

New subject: [Bug 1372836] Review Request: python-hug - A Python framework that makes developing APIs simple

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372836

--- Comment #9 from Iryna Shcherbina ishcherb@redhat.com --- Thanks for update.

C/C++: [!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

There is a number of unversioned .so files, which must be in -devel subpackage:

Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-hug: /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/hug/_async.cpython-36m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-hug: /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/hug/_empty.cpython-36m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-hug: /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/hug/_version.cpython-36m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-hug: /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/hug/api.cpython-36m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-hug: /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/hug/authentication.cpython-36m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-hug: /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/hug/decorators.cpython-36m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-hug: /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/hug/defaults.cpython-36m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-hug: /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/hug/development_runner.cpython-36m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-hug: /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/hug/directives.cpython-36m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-hug: /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/hug/exceptions.cpython-36m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-hug: /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/hug/format.cpython-36m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-hug: /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/hug/input_format.cpython-36m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-hug: /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/hug/interface.cpython-36m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-hug: /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/hug/introspect.cpython-36m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-hug: /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/hug/middleware.cpython-36m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-hug: /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/hug/output_format.cpython-36m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-hug: /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/hug/redirect.cpython-36m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-hug: /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/hug/route.cpython-36m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-hug: /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/hug/routing.cpython-36m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-hug: /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/hug/store.cpython-36m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-hug: /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/hug/test.cpython-36m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-hug: /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/hug/transform.cpython-36m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-hug: /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/hug/types.cpython-36m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-hug: /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/hug/use.cpython-36m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-hug: /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/hug/validate.cpython-36m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so

-- 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

bugzilla＠redhat.com

8:53 a.m.

New subject: [Bug 1372836] Review Request: python-hug - A Python framework that makes developing APIs simple

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372836

Petr Viktorin pviktori@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pviktori@redhat.com

--- Comment #10 from Petr Viktorin pviktori@redhat.com --- Looking at the filenames: these are Python extension modules, not normal shared libraries. They are at the correct place.

-- 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

bugzilla＠redhat.com

12:26 p.m.

New subject: [Bug 1372836] Review Request: python-hug - A Python framework that makes developing APIs simple

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372836

Iryna Shcherbina ishcherb@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+

--- Comment #11 from Iryna Shcherbina ishcherb@redhat.com --- Thanks for taking a look Petr. My mistake.

Package Review ==============

Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

Package approved.

===== MUST items =====

C/C++: [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.

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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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 must own all directories that it creates. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== 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. [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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-hug-2.3.0-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm python-hug-debuginfo-2.3.0-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm python-hug-2.3.0-1.fc26.src.rpm python3-hug.x86_64: W: no-documentation python3-hug.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hug 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: python-hug-debuginfo-2.3.0-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory python3-hug.x86_64: W: no-documentation python3-hug.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hug 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

Requires -------- python-hug-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

python3-hug (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython3.6m.so.1.0()(64bit) python(abi) python3-falcon python3-requests python3-setuptools rtld(GNU_HASH)

Provides -------- python-hug-debuginfo: python-hug-debuginfo python-hug-debuginfo(x86-64)

python3-hug: python3-hug python3-hug(x86-64) python3.6dist(hug) python3dist(hug)

Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.io/packages/source/h/hug/hug-2.3.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2d3b56368a9c07804a244067f08f5c194d555ca05c90ad48445c72d38fb6b7a1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2d3b56368a9c07804a244067f08f5c194d555ca05c90ad48445c72d38fb6b7a1

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1372836 -m fedora-26-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-26-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

-- 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

bugzilla＠redhat.com

8 Jun 8 Jun

11:04 a.m.

New subject: [Bug 1372836] Review Request: python-hug - A Python framework that makes developing APIs simple

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372836

Haïkel Guémar karlthered@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST

--- Comment #12 from Haïkel Guémar karlthered@gmail.com --- Thanks!

-- 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

bugzilla＠redhat.com

11:29 a.m.

New subject: [Bug 1372836] Review Request: python-hug - A Python framework that makes developing APIs simple

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372836

--- Comment #13 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-hug

-- 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

bugzilla＠redhat.com

11:59 a.m.

New subject: [Bug 1372836] Review Request: python-hug - A Python framework that makes developing APIs simple

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372836

Haïkel Guémar karlthered@gmail.com changed:

--- Comment #14 from Haïkel Guémar karlthered@gmail.com --- Imported and built in Rawhide

-- 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

2967

Age (days ago)

3246

Last active (days ago)

package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

15 comments

2 participants

tags (0)

participants (2)

bugzilla＠redhat.com
Red Hat Bugzilla