[Bug 1366635] New: Review Request: python3-simpletal - An XML based template processor for TAL, TALES and METAL specifications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366635
Bug ID: 1366635 Summary: Review Request: python3-simpletal - An XML based template processor for TAL, TALES and METAL specifications Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: thomas.moschny@gmx.de QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://thm.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python3-simpletal/python3-simpletal.spe... SRPM URL: https://thm.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python3-simpletal/python3-simpletal-5.2...
Description: SimpleTAL is a stand alone Python implementation of the TAL, TALES and METAL specifications used in Zope to power HTML and XML templates.
Fedora Account System Username: thm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366635
Thomas Moschny thomas.moschny@gmx.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1309249
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309249 [Bug 1309249] python-simpletal: Provide a Python 3 subpackage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366635
Dominika Krejčí dkrejci@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dkrejci@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Dominika Krejčí dkrejci@redhat.com --- You could use macro %{python3_version} in stead of * in files. ;)
%{python3_sitelib}/%{srcname}-%{version}-py%{python3_version}.egg-info
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366635
Dominika Krejčí dkrejci@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |dkrejci@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Dominika Krejčí dkrejci@redhat.com --- Thomas, please, update the macro in files, the rest seems ok 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of 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: [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: [-]: 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. [-]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-simpletal-5.2-1.fc26.noarch.rpm python3-simpletal-5.2-1.fc26.src.rpm python3-simpletal.src: W: strange-permission python3-simpletal.spec 600 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Requires -------- python3-simpletal (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi)
Provides -------- python3-simpletal: python3-simpletal python3.5dist(simpletal) python3dist(simpletal)
Source checksums ---------------- http://www.owlfish.com/software/simpleTAL/downloads/SimpleTAL-5.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ddff80acdebfffc9cb7de2e20761936ea06fcc7cf362678d4b66bd7bbce9e8e2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ddff80acdebfffc9cb7de2e20761936ea06fcc7cf362678d4b66bd7bbce9e8e2
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1366635 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366635
--- Comment #3 from Igor Gnatenko ignatenko@redhat.com --- (In reply to Dominika Krejčí from comment #1)
You could use macro %{python3_version} in stead of * in files. ;)
%{python3_sitelib}/%{srcname}-%{version}-py%{python3_version}.egg-info
Not really.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366635
--- Comment #4 from Dominika Krejčí dkrejci@redhat.com --- (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #3)
(In reply to Dominika Krejčí from comment #1)
You could use macro %{python3_version} in stead of * in files. ;)
%{python3_sitelib}/%{srcname}-%{version}-py%{python3_version}.egg-info
Not really.
Why?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366635
Petr Viktorin pviktori@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pviktori@redhat.com
--- Comment #5 from Petr Viktorin pviktori@redhat.com --- I think the * is fine.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366635
Dominika Krejčí dkrejci@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366635
--- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python3-simpletal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366635
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python3-simpletal-5.2-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-c980871bcf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366635
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366635
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python3-simpletal-5.2-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3ac481b243
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366635
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python3-simpletal-5.2-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-485f60f683
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366635
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python3-simpletal-5.2-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 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-2016-485f60f683
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366635
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python3-simpletal-5.2-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 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-2016-3ac481b243
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366635
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python3-simpletal-5.2-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-2016-c980871bcf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366635
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python3-simpletal-5.2-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366635
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2016-09-05 13:52:40
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366635
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python3-simpletal-5.2-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366635
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python3-simpletal-5.2-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla