[Bug 1299580] New: Review Request: python-grafyaml - Tools to make Grafana dashboards from templates
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299580
Bug ID: 1299580 Summary: Review Request: python-grafyaml - Tools to make Grafana dashboards from templates Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: pabelanger@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://pabelanger.fedorapeople.org//python-grafyaml.spec SRPM URL: http://pabelanger.fedorapeople.org//python-grafyaml-0.0.5-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: Grafyaml takes simple descriptions of Grafana dashboards in YAML format, and uses them to configure Grafana.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299580
--- Comment #1 from Paul Belanger pabelanger@redhat.com --- So, I posted this using fedora-create-review but sadly, I could not get koji scratch build to work.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299580
Haïkel Guémar karlthered@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |karlthered@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |karlthered@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299580
--- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- pabelanger's scratch build of python-grafyaml-0.0.5-1.fc24.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12593864
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299580
--- Comment #3 from Paul Belanger pabelanger@redhat.com --- Oh, how odd. I guess scratch builds did work. It gave me an error first time around.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299580
--- Comment #4 from Paul Belanger pabelanger@redhat.com --- *** Bug 1299594 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299580
Haïkel Guémar karlthered@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Haïkel Guémar karlthered@gmail.com --- Small fix required before import, doc subpackage can be installed without its license file. Please add it.
I hereby approve this package into Fedora Packages Collection, please submit a SCM request in PkgDB.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/haikel/1299580-python-grafyaml/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [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. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 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 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2-grafyaml , python3-grafyaml , python-grafyaml-doc [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [-]: 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. [x]: %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: python2-grafyaml-0.0.5-1.fc24.noarch.rpm python3-grafyaml-0.0.5-1.fc24.noarch.rpm python-grafyaml-doc-0.0.5-1.fc24.noarch.rpm python-grafyaml-0.0.5-1.fc24.src.rpm python2-grafyaml.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary grafana-dashboard python3-grafyaml.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary grafana-dashboard 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-grafyaml.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary grafana-dashboard python2-grafyaml.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary grafana-dashboard 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Requires -------- python3-grafyaml (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3-dogpile-cache python3-pbr python3-requests python3-slugify python3-voluptuous python3-yaml
python-grafyaml-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
python2-grafyaml (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python-dogpile-cache python2-pbr python2-requests python2-slugify python2-voluptuous python2-yaml
Provides -------- python3-grafyaml: python3-grafyaml
python-grafyaml-doc: python-grafyaml-doc
python2-grafyaml: python-grafyaml python2-grafyaml
Source checksums ---------------- http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/g/grafyaml/grafyaml-0.0.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1f2f04fc6a26fd46f037aca4777129155f5815dd3d04f40968f9bb267c5949e4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1f2f04fc6a26fd46f037aca4777129155f5815dd3d04f40968f9bb267c5949e4
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1299580 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299580
--- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/python-grafyaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299580
--- Comment #7 from Paul Belanger pabelanger@redhat.com --- Great, thanks everybody for the help.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299580
Paul Belanger pabelanger@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed| |2016-02-04 10:23:08
--- Comment #8 from Paul Belanger pabelanger@redhat.com --- Thanks, I've added the code to pkgdb and push into rawhide. Thanks again for all the help.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299580
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zbyszek@in.waw.pl Resolution|NOTABUG |RAWHIDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299580
--- Comment #9 from Paul Belanger pabelanger@redhat.com --- Ah, thanks. I seem to always miss that.
Aside from manually close the issue, do bug numbers in commit message not work for rawhide?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299580
--- Comment #10 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl --- Issues can be closed automatically only be updates. So bug numbers don't work for rawhide because there are no updates.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla