[Bug 1441842] New: Review Request: python-yamlordereddictloader - YAML loader for PyYAML that maintains key order
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1441842
Bug ID: 1441842 Summary: Review Request: python-yamlordereddictloader - YAML loader for PyYAML that maintains key order Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: greg.hellings@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~greghellings/python-yamlordereddictloader/python-y... SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~greghellings/python-yamlordereddictloader/python-y... Description: This is a loader for PyYAML that maintains the order of the keys and values in a dictionary as they appear in the input file. This can be useful for certain applications where named values should also be maintained in a particular order Fedora Account System Username: greghellings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1441842
greg.hellings@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alias| |python-yamlordereddictloade | |r
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1441842
greg.hellings@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1441843
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1441843 [Bug 1441843] Review Request: linchpin - Ansible based multicloud orchestrator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1441842
Jonathan Dieter jdieter@lesbg.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |jdieter@lesbg.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jdieter@lesbg.com
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Dieter jdieter@lesbg.com --- I'll take this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1441842
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Dieter jdieter@lesbg.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Question
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [?]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
Should this Require: python3-PyYAML and PyYAML (for python2)?
[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 must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [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]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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 [-]: 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. [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
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.
If you just opened a ticket with upstream, asking them to include the text of the MIT license in a COPYING or LICENSE file, that should be enough to fulfill this requirement
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
Version 0.2.0 was released two weeks ago
[!]: Relevant documentation should be included
The source contains README.rst but it's never actually installed as documentation
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
===== 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-yamlordereddictloader-0.1.1-1.fc27.noarch.rpm python3-yamlordereddictloader-0.1.1-1.fc27.noarch.rpm python-yamlordereddictloader-0.1.1-1.fc27.src.rpm python2-yamlordereddictloader.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-yamlordereddictloader.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory python2-yamlordereddictloader.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-yamlordereddictloader.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1441842
--- Comment #3 from greg.hellings@gmail.com --- Story of my life - make a package request, end up with a new version released half way through the process.
I've updated to 0.2.0, added the README.rst to the docs list, added PyYAML to the dependency list, and filed a bug with upstream requesting they add the MIT license file to their sources. https://github.com/fmenabe/python-yamlordereddictloader/issues/4
spec: https://fedorapeople.org/~greghellings/python-yamlordereddictloader/python-y... SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~greghellings/python-yamlordereddictloader/python-y...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1441842
--- Comment #4 from greg.hellings@gmail.com --- Upstream released 0.2.2 with the added LICENSE.txt file. I've updated the spec file. New SRPM https://fedorapeople.org/~greghellings/python-yamlordereddictloader/python-y...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1441842
Jonathan Dieter jdieter@lesbg.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Dieter jdieter@lesbg.com --- Looks great! I think you can remove the comment before the license tag, now that it's included in the source. Package approved!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1441842
--- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-yamlordereddictloa...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1441842
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-yamlordereddictloader-0.2.2-2.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-4406fa4057
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1441842
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1441842
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-yamlordereddictloader-0.2.2-2.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-88dcadf3e6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1441842
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-yamlordereddictloader-0.2.2-2.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-2017-88dcadf3e6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1441842
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-yamlordereddictloader-0.2.2-2.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 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-2017-4406fa4057
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1441842
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2017-05-01 14:14:57
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-yamlordereddictloader-0.2.2-2.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1441842
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-yamlordereddictloader-0.2.2-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com