Bug 1010334
Summary: | Review Request: python-jenkinsapi - A Python API for accessing resources on a Jenkins(CI) server | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Praveen Kumar <kumarpraveen.nitdgp> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Christopher Meng <i> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | i, notting, sal, sanjay.ankur |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | i:
fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | python-jenkinsapi-0.2.16-1.fc20 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2013-11-03 04:31:03 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Praveen Kumar
2013-09-20 14:22:08 UTC
Please update to the latest version. I STRONGLY recommend you using pypi: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/jenkinsapi/0.2.14 This will simplify the spec and your work. And, 1. Remove rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT 2. No need to add a comment "# For noarch packages: sitelib". (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #1) > Please update to the latest version. > > I STRONGLY recommend you using pypi: > > https://pypi.python.org/pypi/jenkinsapi/0.2.14 Ah, It was update yesterday but still don't have licence info which github source have, i mailed to upstream to add it to pypi tarball. will wait for their reply. > > This will simplify the spec and your work. > > And, > > 1. Remove rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Done > > 2. No need to add a comment "# For noarch packages: sitelib". Done Hi Praveen, The project is MIT Licensed. You can see the full text of the MIT license in the pkginfo output. I have just made a new release to pypi with additional license information. I'm curious about why Fedora people would want this license to be part of the OS? Surely you'd just install it from PyPi. Let me know what it is that you are trying to achieve and I will do my best to help. Sal One more question - does Fedora have a process for keeping packages like this up to date? We push about one release every month - it's still under very active development and not 'stable', hence my previous comment that pypi is a more sensible option than any os-bound package manager. (In reply to Salim Fadhley from comment #4) > One more question - does Fedora have a process for keeping packages like > this up to date? Yes, each source release will be updated to fedora repo, its package maintainer responsibility to do that. > > We push about one release every month - it's still under very active > development and not 'stable', hence my previous comment that pypi is a more > sensible option than any os-bound package manager. Yes pypi is really a good option but because now I use jenkinsapi daily so I thought it is a good idea to package it. I can maintain it's regular release with fedora. When you finish building, tell me the URLs. Thanks. ping after 3 weeks. Hi Meng, Pypi source doesn't contain License file but it specify the License info, If that doesn't create issue then I made required changes. SPEC: http://kumarpraveen.fedorapeople.org/python-jenkinsapi/python-jenkinsapi.spec SRPM:http://kumarpraveen.fedorapeople.org/python-jenkinsapi/python-jenkinsapi-0.2.16-1.fc19.src.rpm It looks like you don't need any more changes to JenkinsAPI. I'm going to stop watching this discussion. Sal Hi Salim, It's alright if you don't want to follow this discussion, we can mail you if some bug/feature come up. Like currently it will be good if license file is included in pypi tarball, it's in github source. (In reply to Praveen Kumar from comment #10) > Hi Salim, > > It's alright if you don't want to follow this discussion, we can mail you if > some bug/feature come up. Like currently it will be good if license file is > included in pypi tarball, it's in github source. I hope you can reupload the same versioned tarball with a license file. Then I will review this ASAP. I am not going to do that. If you need an additional license file please feel free to make a git pull request with your required change. As I previously stated - the entire license text is already in the file - you can see it if you use pkg_info. (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #11) > (In reply to Praveen Kumar from comment #10) > > Hi Salim, > > > > It's alright if you don't want to follow this discussion, we can mail you if > > some bug/feature come up. Like currently it will be good if license file is > > included in pypi tarball, it's in github source. > > I hope you can reupload the same versioned tarball with a license file. Then > I will review this ASAP. The license file is *not* mandatory. If the code itself clearly specifies what license it's under, that's good enough. This isn't a blocker for review. (In reply to Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) from comment #13) > (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #11) > > (In reply to Praveen Kumar from comment #10) > > > Hi Salim, > > > > > > It's alright if you don't want to follow this discussion, we can mail you if > > > some bug/feature come up. Like currently it will be good if license file is > > > included in pypi tarball, it's in github source. > > > > I hope you can reupload the same versioned tarball with a license file. Then > > I will review this ASAP. > > The license file is *not* mandatory. If the code itself clearly specifies > what license it's under, that's good enough. This isn't a blocker for review. HAVE I SAID THAT IT'S A BLOCKER? (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #14) > (In reply to Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) from comment #13) > > (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #11) > > > (In reply to Praveen Kumar from comment #10) > > > > Hi Salim, > > > > > > > > It's alright if you don't want to follow this discussion, we can mail you if > > > > some bug/feature come up. Like currently it will be good if license file is > > > > included in pypi tarball, it's in github source. > > > > > > I hope you can reupload the same versioned tarball with a license file. Then > > > I will review this ASAP. A needinfo flag with this sentence is excess stress on the point, and certainly indicates that you are waiting for upstream to upload a license file before proceeding with the review. If you weren't waiting for it, I would've expected you to proceed with the review at comment 8 itself. I'm sorry if I misunderstood you here. > > > > The license file is *not* mandatory. If the code itself clearly specifies > > what license it's under, that's good enough. This isn't a blocker for review. > > HAVE I SAID THAT IT'S A BLOCKER? I hope you are aware that using caps implies you're screaming. Are you? And if you are, why? Enjoy the review, Ankur PACKAGE APPROVED. -------- 1. First, as Salim Fadhley said, he would stop following this thread, so I lifted needinfo, tried to avoid speaking with air. 2. I emphasized that I never treated as blocker(of course this is not the first time), I hope MIT/ISC/BSD projects can include a separate license file but some of them are not willing to do that. But this is not a problem. Okay. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-jenkinsapi Short Description: A Python API for accessing resources on a Jenkins(CI) server Owners: kumarpraveen Branches: f18 f19 f20 Git done (by process-git-requests). python-jenkinsapi-0.2.16-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-jenkinsapi-0.2.16-1.fc20 python-jenkinsapi-0.2.16-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-jenkinsapi-0.2.16-1.fc19 python-jenkinsapi-0.2.16-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-jenkinsapi-0.2.16-1.fc18 python-jenkinsapi-0.2.16-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. python-jenkinsapi-0.2.16-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. python-jenkinsapi-0.2.16-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. python-jenkinsapi-0.2.16-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. |