https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1762471
Bug ID: 1762471 Summary: Review Request: python-upt-cpan - CPAN front-end for upt Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jeremy.bertozzi@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
SPEC URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jbertozzi/copr-build-upt/master/python-upt... SRPM URL: https://github.com/jbertozzi/copr-build-upt/raw/master/SRPMS/python-upt-fedo...
Description: CPAN front-end for upt (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756899).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1762471
--- Comment #1 from Jeremy Bertozzi jeremy.bertozzi@gmail.com --- Correct link for SRPM:
SPEC URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jbertozzi/copr-build-upt/master/python-upt... SRPM URL: https://github.com/jbertozzi/copr-build-upt/raw/master/SRPMS/python-upt-cpan...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1762471
Elliott Sales de Andrade quantum.analyst@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |quantum.analyst@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Elliott Sales de Andrade quantum.analyst@gmail.com --- What is your FAS username?
Your link is 404'ing.
upt seems to be packaged; why not enable tests?
The automated dependency generator should find those Requires automatically, so no need to specify them manually.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1762471
Ben Cotton bcotton@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |EOL Last Closed| |2019-11-27 14:22:11
--- Comment #3 from Ben Cotton bcotton@redhat.com --- Fedora 29 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2019-11-26. Fedora 29 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug.
If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug.
Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1762471
Ben Cotton bcotton@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |NEW Resolution|EOL |--- Keywords| |Reopened
--- Comment #4 from Ben Cotton bcotton@redhat.com --- This bug was accidentally closed due to a query error. Reopening.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1762471
--- Comment #5 from Jeremy Bertozzi jeremy.bertozzi@gmail.com --- (In reply to Elliott Sales de Andrade from comment #2)
Your link is 404'ing.
Fixed.
upt seems to be packaged; why not enable tests?
They require network access, note sure if it is possible to enable it with fedpkg.
The automated dependency generator should find those Requires automatically, so no need to specify them manually.
You are right, fixed.
Thanks for you help.
SPEC URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jbertozzi/copr-build-upt/master/python-upt... SRPM URL: https://github.com/jbertozzi/copr-build-upt/raw/master/SRPMS/python-upt-cpan...
FAS account name: jbertozzi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1762471
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 Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - Please separate your changelog entries by a newline
- Please use either tabs or spaces not both:
python-upt-cpan.src:25: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 25, tab: line 5)
BuildRequires: upt
Package approved. Please fix the aforementioned issues before import.
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: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-upt-cpan/review- python-upt-cpan/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 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 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-upt-cpan-0.5-2.fc32.noarch.rpm python-upt-cpan-0.5-2.fc32.src.rpm python-upt-cpan.src:25: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 25, tab: line 5) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1762471
--- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-upt-cpan
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1762471
Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED CC| |mail@fabian-affolter.ch Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed|2019-11-27 14:22:11 |2020-05-19 10:47:00
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com