Bug 1045476

Doesn't build in mock on Fedora 20 :

Exécution_de(%check) : /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.NxCMJS
+ umask 022
+ cd /builddir/build/BUILD
+ cd dnf-plugins
+ PYTHONPATH=./plugins
+ nosetests-2.7 -s tests/
E
======================================================================
ERROR: Failure: ImportError (No module named pykickstart.parser)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/nose/loader.py", line 413, in loadTestsFromName
    addr.filename, addr.module)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/nose/importer.py", line 47, in importFromPath
    return self.importFromDir(dir_path, fqname)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/nose/importer.py", line 94, in importFromDir
    mod = load_module(part_fqname, fh, filename, desc)
  File "/builddir/build/BUILD/dnf-plugins/tests/test_kickstart.py", line 23, in <module>
    import kickstart
  File "/builddir/build/BUILD/dnf-plugins/plugins/kickstart.py", line 22, in <module>
    import pykickstart.parser
ImportError: No module named pykickstart.parser
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks Michael, what about now?

From what I understood on IRC, Fedora 19 is not supported anymore, so I won't review it.

Successful Fedora 20 scratch build - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6363329

Successful Fedora rawhide scratch build - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6363334

(In reply to Cristian Ciupitu from comment #3)
> From what I understood on IRC, Fedora 19 is not supported anymore, so I
> won't review it.
Not quite. F18 is going EOL soon (IIRC, Jan 14th). F19 will still be supported for ca. 1/2 year.

$ rpmlint dnf-plugins-core.spec
dnf-plugins-core.spec: W: no-%build-section

$ rpmlint dnf-plugins-core-0.0.1-1.fc20.src.rpm
dnf-plugins-core.src: W: strange-permission dnf-plugins-core.spec 0600L
dnf-plugins-core.src: W: strange-permission dnf-plugins-core-561c107.tar.xz 0600L
dnf-plugins-core.src: W: no-%build-section

I suggest using 644 for the permissions to get rid of the warnings and
adding an empty %build section or comment saying it's not needed.

A couple of other nitpicks:
 - replace $RPM_BUILD_ROOT with %{buildroot} for extra consistency;
 - the URL for Souce0 is invalid (404). If you decide for a Github URL
   see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github .
   For example
   https://github.com/akozumpl/dnf-plugins-core/archive/561c107e11e6c560866a0cb5c3cd181240f825bf/dnf-plugins-core-0.0.1-561c107e11.tar.bz2
   works fine;
 - the release and the changelog should probably be updated for every
   change so that the reviewers and submitter can be sure they're
   talking about the same thing. I'm saying this because you've probably
   changed something after the first comment and the release number is
   still 1.


(In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #4)
> (In reply to Cristian Ciupitu from comment #3)
> > From what I understood on IRC, Fedora 19 is not supported anymore, so I
> > won't review it.
> Not quite. F18 is going EOL soon (IIRC, Jan 14th). F19 will still be
> supported for ca. 1/2 year.

I was referring to to this new package. It doesn't have to support
Fedora 19 if the author doesn't want to.

(In reply to Cristian Ciupitu from comment #5)

> (In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Cristian Ciupitu from comment #3)
> > > From what I understood on IRC, Fedora 19 is not supported anymore, so I
> > > won't review it.
> > Not quite. F18 is going EOL soon (IIRC, Jan 14th). F19 will still be
> > supported for ca. 1/2 year.
> 
> I was referring to to this new package. It doesn't have to support
> Fedora 19 if the author doesn't want to.
True, however this would contradict the dnf devs' intentions to have dnf tested, because "replacing yum with dnf is due with f22" (akozumpl on fedora-users).
IMO, if they are serious about this, they cannot avoid also providing dnf-core with F19, because this would lock out many Fedora users from testing dnf.

Also, I'd like to ask the dnf devs, why this package (dnf-core) exists at all and is not part of dnf. IMO, it doesn't make much sense to separate a plugin-frame work (dnf-core) from the base package (dnf).

Cristian,

I upload new versions of the spec and srpm:

http://akozumpl.fedorapeople.org/dnf-plugins-core-0.0.1-2.fc20.src.rpm
http://akozumpl.fedorapeople.org/dnf-plugins-core.spec

On the server, these files are all 0644, isn't it that your permission mask gives them 0600 when downloaded?

I also dislike using the github URL for URL0 as it often doesn't work (e.g. the link you posted). But the URL0 used by the spec works.

Thanks,
Ales

Hey, uploaded even newer version. Fixes the unused buildrequires and perms:

http://akozumpl.fedorapeople.org/dnf-plugins-core.spec
http://akozumpl.fedorapeople.org/dnf-plugins-core-561c107.tar.xz

tl;dr
 - add BuildRequires: python2-devel as mentioned on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires 
 - use cp -a in order to preserve attributes like timestamp
 - I'll also need a way to verify that the plugins work

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel


===== 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.
[-]: 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 30720 bytes in 3 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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 %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist
[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:
[-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[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.
[-]: 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.
[!]: 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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: dnf-plugins-core-0.0.1-3.fc20.noarch.rpm
          dnf-plugins-core-0.0.1-3.fc20.src.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint dnf-plugins-core
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
dnf-plugins-core (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    dnf
    pykickstart
    python(abi)



Provides
--------
dnf-plugins-core:
    dnf-plugins-core



Source checksums
----------------
http://akozumpl.fedorapeople.org/dnf-plugins-core-561c107.tar.xz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 64708646745d5b9be919322319c330bd46ecd9f1528f8a668d3f6f93a2e3384a
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 64708646745d5b9be919322319c330bd46ecd9f1528f8a668d3f6f93a2e3384a


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n dnf-plugins-core
Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

tl;dr
 - add BuildRequires: python2-devel as mentioned on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires 
 - use cp -a in order to preserve attributes like timestamp
 - I'll also need a way to verify that the plugins work

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel


===== 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.
[-]: 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 30720 bytes in 3 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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 %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist
[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:
[-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[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.
[-]: 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.
[!]: 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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: dnf-plugins-core-0.0.1-3.fc20.noarch.rpm
          dnf-plugins-core-0.0.1-3.fc20.src.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint dnf-plugins-core
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
dnf-plugins-core (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    dnf
    pykickstart
    python(abi)



Provides
--------
dnf-plugins-core:
    dnf-plugins-core



Source checksums
----------------
http://akozumpl.fedorapeople.org/dnf-plugins-core-561c107.tar.xz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 64708646745d5b9be919322319c330bd46ecd9f1528f8a668d3f6f93a2e3384a
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 64708646745d5b9be919322319c330bd46ecd9f1528f8a668d3f6f93a2e3384a


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n dnf-plugins-core
Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

tl;dr
 - add BuildRequires: python2-devel as mentioned on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires 
 - use cp -a in order to preserve attributes like timestamp
 - I'll also need a way to verify that the plugins work

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel


===== 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.
[-]: 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 30720 bytes in 3 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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 %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist
[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:
[-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[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.
[-]: 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.
[!]: 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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: dnf-plugins-core-0.0.1-3.fc20.noarch.rpm
          dnf-plugins-core-0.0.1-3.fc20.src.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint dnf-plugins-core
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
dnf-plugins-core (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    dnf
    pykickstart
    python(abi)



Provides
--------
dnf-plugins-core:
    dnf-plugins-core



Source checksums
----------------
http://akozumpl.fedorapeople.org/dnf-plugins-core-561c107.tar.xz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 64708646745d5b9be919322319c330bd46ecd9f1528f8a668d3f6f93a2e3384a
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 64708646745d5b9be919322319c330bd46ecd9f1528f8a668d3f6f93a2e3384a


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n dnf-plugins-core
Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

New version of the spec:

https://raw.github.com/akozumpl/dnf-plugins-core/packaging/package/dnf-plugins-core.spec

Fedora 20 scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6372172

Fedora rawhide scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6372177

The remaining points have been covered, so I declare this new package approved.

As a side note, the required version of dnf is not available yet for Fedora 20, but it will be hopefully soon.

No SCM request, clearing flag.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: dnf-plugins-core
Short Description: Core Plugins for DNF
Owners: packaging-team
Branches: f20 rawhide
InitialCC: akozumpl

WARNING: "packaging-team" is not in the packager group.
WARNING: Invalid branch rawhide requested, devel is automatic.

Please correct.

Hi Jon, I want the same owner setting as we have for "dnf":
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/dnf

If that's not possible then put me as the owner please.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: dnf-plugins-core
Short Description: Core Plugins for DNF
Owners: packaging-team
Branches: f20
InitialCC: akozumpl

(In reply to Cristian Ciupitu from comment #13)
> As a side note, the required version of dnf is not available yet for Fedora
> 20, but it will be hopefully soon.

Built today: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dnf-0.4.11-1.fc20

Please update the request to reflect yourself as the owner.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: dnf-plugins-core
Short Description: Core Plugins for DNF
Owners: akozumpl
Branches: f20
InitialCC: akozumpl

Git done (by process-git-requests).

dnf-plugins-core-0.0.2-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dnf-plugins-core-0.0.2-1.fc20

If I have not missed any comment then comment#6 is still unanswered here.

dnf-plugins-core-0.0.2-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.