https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307129
Bug ID: 1307129 Summary: Review Request: mkdocs-bootstrap - Bootstrap theme for MKDocs Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: williamjmorenor@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/mkdocs-bootstrap.spec SRPM URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/mkdocs-bootstrap-0.1.1-1.fc2... Description: Bootstrap theme for MKDocs Fedora Account System Username: williamjmorenor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307129
William Moreno williamjmorenor@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1307127
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307127 [Bug 1307127] Review Request: mkdocs-bootswatch - Bootswatch themes for MkDocs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307129
William Moreno williamjmorenor@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |1307130
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307130 [Bug 1307130] Review Request: mkdocs-basic-theme - MkDocs Basic Theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307129
Eduardo Mayorga e@mayorgalinux.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |e@mayorgalinux.com QA Contact|extras-qa@fedoraproject.org |e@mayorgalinux.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307129
--- Comment #1 from Eduardo Mayorga e@mayorgalinux.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues: ======= - rpmlint complains about W: no-version-in-last-changelog.
===== 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mayorga/reviews/1307129-mkdocs-bootstrap/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages, /usr/lib/python3.5 [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.5/site- packages, /usr/lib/python3.5 [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines -> See Issues above. [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 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. [-]: 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: [!]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [-]: 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. [?]: 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: mkdocs-bootstrap-0.1.1-1.fc24.noarch.rpm mkdocs-bootstrap-0.1.1-1.fc24.src.rpm mkdocs-bootstrap.noarch: W: no-version-in-last-changelog mkdocs-bootstrap.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/mkdocs_bootstrap/fonts/fontawesome-webfont.svg mkdocs-bootstrap.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
Requires -------- mkdocs-bootstrap (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mkdocs-basic-theme python(abi)
Provides -------- mkdocs-bootstrap: mkdocs-bootstrap
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/mkdocs/mkdocs-bootstrap/archive/0.1.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 215fd357e51f9505e5f5ac45e3c0bb15ed431c3c24abf8f1f3afff66fd51f842 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 215fd357e51f9505e5f5ac45e3c0bb15ed431c3c24abf8f1f3afff66fd51f842
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307129
William Moreno williamjmorenor@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |e@mayorgalinux.com
--- Comment #2 from William Moreno williamjmorenor@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/mkdocs-bootstrap.spec SRPM URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/mkdocs-bootstrap-0.1.1-1.fc2...
Fixed de changelog entry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307129 Bug 1307129 depends on bug 1307130, which changed state.
Bug 1307130 Summary: Review Request: mkdocs-basic-theme - MkDocs Basic Theme https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307130
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307129
Eduardo Mayorga e@mayorgalinux.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- QA Contact|e@mayorgalinux.com |extras-qa@fedoraproject.org Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Eduardo Mayorga e@mayorgalinux.com --- PACKAGE APPROVED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307129
--- Comment #4 from William Moreno williamjmorenor@gmail.com --- Thanks for the review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307129
--- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/mkdocs-bootstrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307129
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- mkdocs-bootstrap-0.1.1-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-530e2d1096
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307129
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307129
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- mkdocs-bootstrap-0.1.1-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-f1ad09bc3b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307129
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- mkdocs-bootstrap-0.1.1-1.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-2016-530e2d1096
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307129
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- mkdocs-bootstrap-0.1.1-1.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-f1ad09bc3b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307129
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- mkdocs-bootstrap-0.1.1-1.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=1307129
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2016-04-04 13:26:40
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307129
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- mkdocs-bootstrap-0.1.1-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307129
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- mkdocs-bootstrap-0.1.1-1.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