[Bug 1880077] New: Review Request: python-awsume - CLI that makes using AWS IAM credentials easy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880077
Bug ID: 1880077 Summary: Review Request: python-awsume - CLI that makes using AWS IAM credentials easy Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: igor.raits@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-awsume.spec SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-awsume-4.4.1-1.fc3... Description: CLI that makes using AWS IAM credentials easy. Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880077
--- Comment #1 from Igor Raits igor.raits@gmail.com --- New Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-awsume.spec New SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-awsume-4.4.1-1.fc3...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880077
Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com --- Package approved.
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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License". 46 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-awsume/review-python- awsume/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: 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. [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]: 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]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-awsume-4.4.1-1.fc34.noarch.rpm python-awsume-4.4.1-1.fc34.src.rpm python3-awsume.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary autoawsume python3-awsume.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary awsume python3-awsume.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary awsume-autocomplete python3-awsume.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary awsume-configure python3-awsume.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary awsumepy 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880077
Mattia Verga mattia.verga@protonmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |NEW Flags|fedora-review+ | Assignee|zebob.m@gmail.com |nobody@fedoraproject.org
--- Comment #3 from Mattia Verga mattia.verga@protonmail.com --- Resetting ticket status, since the review-flag it's too old to allow repository creation. This package will need a fresh review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880077
Major Hayden 🤠 mhayden@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mhayden@redhat.com
--- Comment #4 from Major Hayden 🤠 mhayden@redhat.com --- It looks like 4.5.3 is available now. Can we update the package to that version? I'd be happy to review it if you can ping me when it's updated.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com