https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317306
Bug ID: 1317306 Summary: Review Request: legofy - Make images look as LEGO blocks Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: omarberroteranlkf@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://lkf.fedorapeople.org/legofy.spec SRPM URL: https://lkf.fedorapeople.org/legofy-1.0.0-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: Make images look as if they are made out of 1x1 LEGO blocks Fedora Account System Username: lkf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317306
William Moreno williamjmorenor@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |williamjmorenor@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |williamjmorenor@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317306
William Moreno williamjmorenor@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317306
Eduardo Mayorga e@mayorgalinux.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |e@mayorgalinux.com
--- Comment #1 from Eduardo Mayorga e@mayorgalinux.com --- - You can drop Requires: python3-libs since it is installed by default in every Fedora install.
- Use %{name} in the URL tag. It becomes: https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/l/%%7Bname%7D/%%7Bname%7D-%%7Bversio...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317306
--- Comment #2 from William Moreno williamjmorenor@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============
legofy.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary legofy
Replace: install -pDm644 %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/leggofy.1
with install -pDm644 %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/legofy.1
This package looks god for me, Eduardo comments are no bloquers issues, but I want to see some informals reviews before sponsor you as a Fedora Packager.
===== 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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. 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]: 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python: [ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [ ]: 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. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: 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: legofy-1.0.0-1.fc25.noarch.rpm legofy-1.0.0-1.fc25.src.rpm legofy.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python3-libs legofy.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gif -> GIF, fig, gig legofy.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary legofy legofy.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gif -> GIF, fig, gig 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory legofy.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python3-libs legofy.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gif -> GIF, fig, gig legofy.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary legofy 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
Requires -------- legofy (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3-click python3-libs python3-pillow
Provides -------- legofy: legofy
Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/l/legofy/legofy-1.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3df337047fff12dee9b503ae712534d52ad225e12e0bd0301d9d2f832d0d67be CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3df337047fff12dee9b503ae712534d52ad225e12e0bd0301d9d2f832d0d67be
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317306
--- Comment #3 from Omar Berroteran omarberroteranlkf@gmail.com --- (In reply to Eduardo Mayorga from comment #1)
- You can drop Requires: python3-libs since it is installed by default in
every Fedora install.
- Use %{name} in the URL tag. It becomes:
https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/l/%%7Bname%7D/%%7Bname%7D-%%7Bversio...
Listo.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317306
--- Comment #4 from Omar Berroteran omarberroteranlkf@gmail.com --- (In reply to Omar Berroteran from comment #0)
Spec URL: https://lkf.fedorapeople.org/legofy.spec SRPM URL: https://lkf.fedorapeople.org/legofy-1.0.0-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: Make images look as if they are made out of 1x1 LEGO blocks Fedora Account System Username: lkf
https://lkf.fedorapeople.org/legofy-1.0.0-1.fc23.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317306
--- Comment #5 from Omar Berroteran omarberroteranlkf@gmail.com --- (In reply to William Moreno from comment #2)
Package Review
legofy.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary legofy
Replace: install -pDm644 %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/leggofy.1
with install -pDm644 %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/legofy.1
This package looks god for me, Eduardo comments are no bloquers issues, but I want to see some informals reviews before sponsor you as a Fedora Packager.
===== 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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. 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]: 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python: [ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [ ]: 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. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: 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: legofy-1.0.0-1.fc25.noarch.rpm legofy-1.0.0-1.fc25.src.rpm legofy.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python3-libs legofy.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gif -> GIF, fig, gig legofy.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary legofy legofy.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gif -> GIF, fig, gig 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory legofy.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python3-libs legofy.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gif -> GIF, fig, gig legofy.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary legofy 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
Requires
legofy (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3-click python3-libs python3-pillow
Provides
legofy: legofy
Source checksums
https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/l/legofy/legofy-1.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3df337047fff12dee9b503ae712534d52ad225e12e0bd0301d9d2f832d0d67be CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3df337047fff12dee9b503ae712534d52ad225e12e0bd0301d9d2f832d0d67be
Listo.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317306
--- Comment #6 from William Moreno williamjmorenor@gmail.com --- Please use the format:
Spec URL: SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317306
--- Comment #7 from William Moreno williamjmorenor@gmail.com --- Please also remember to bump the release tag and make a entry in the changelog any time to you make a change to the spec.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317306
William Moreno williamjmorenor@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |omarberroteranlkf@gmail.com Flags| |needinfo?(omarberroteranlkf | |@gmail.com)
--- Comment #8 from William Moreno williamjmorenor@gmail.com --- Any update?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317306
William Moreno williamjmorenor@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(omarberroteranlkf | |@gmail.com) |
--- Comment #9 from William Moreno williamjmorenor@gmail.com --- I have been working with and I think he is ready to become a Fedora Packager.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317306
--- Comment #10 from William Moreno williamjmorenor@gmail.com --- I have aproved lkf in the Fedora Packager Commiter group in FAS, please wait some hours to request the new package in pkgdb.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317306
--- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/legofy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317306
--- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been denied with the reason: Duplicate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317306
--- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been denied with the reason: Duplicate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317306
--- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been denied with the reason: Duplicate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317306
--- Comment #15 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been denied with the reason: Duplicate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317306
--- Comment #16 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been denied with the reason: Duplicate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317306
William Moreno williamjmorenor@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2016-07-31 13:41:49
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org