Bug 1196366

One small typo: sed -i s/REDHATDESIGNATECLIENTVERSION/%{version}/ designateclient/version.py (patch is correct)

Everything else looks good.

(In reply to Haïkel Guémar from comment #1)
> One small typo: sed -i s/REDHATDESIGNATECLIENTVERSION/%{version}/
> designateclient/version.py (patch is correct)
> 
> Everything else looks good.

Oops, fixed, thanks Haïkel!

First, I just sponsored you into the Fedora Packager group, you showed good understanding of RPM packaging and Fedora guidelines.
Congratulations Victoria ! As your sponsor, I'll remain available to answer your questions and/or help you with your packages, so feel free to ping me any time.

Then, I reviewed python-designateclient and I hereby approved into Fedora Packages Collection since it complies with our guidelines. Please submit a SCM request to import the package.
For the branches, I recommend rawhide (Kilo), F22 (Juno); F21/Juno package will be provided through RDO repositories.

Formal review report below

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:
     "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)".
     2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/haikel/1196366-python-designateclient/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.
[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 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]: 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

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.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[-]: 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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python-designateclient-1.1.1-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
          python-designateclient-1.1.1-1.fc23.src.rpm
python-designateclient.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C Client library and command line utility for interacting with OpenStack DNSaaS API.
python-designateclient.noarch: W: no-documentation
python-designateclient.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary designate
python-designateclient.src: E: description-line-too-long C Client library and command line utility for interacting with OpenStack DNSaaS API.
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Requires
--------
python-designateclient (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python2
    python(abi)
    python-jsonschema
    python-keystoneclient
    python-requests
    python-six
    python-stevedore



Provides
--------
python-designateclient:
    python-designateclient



Source checksums
----------------
https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/python-designateclient/python-designateclient-1.1.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 1ad61a13f1bf16a27c5dad8ca5f2850d19cb33a2d67eb738fcc323f9805e06ea
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1ad61a13f1bf16a27c5dad8ca5f2850d19cb33a2d67eb738fcc323f9805e06ea


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1196366 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

Thanks a lot Haïkel!

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: python-designateclient 
Short Description: Client library for OpenStack Designate DNS API
Upstream URL: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/python-designateclient/1.1.1
Owners: vkmc
Branches: f22
InitialCC:

WARNING: fedora-review flag not set
WARNING: Requested package name python-designateclient doesn't match bug
summary openstack-designateclient

See prior comment and correct, please.

Damnit, must have messed while switching accounts, I set the fedora-review flag to '+'.

@Victoria: please redo the scm request.

@Jon Thanks for checking out, I think its fixed now.

@Haikel No worries! Thanks for setting the flag. I'll redo the SCM request.

Git done (by process-git-requests).

You can drop 0001-Remove-runtime-dependency-on-python-pbr.patch and Add Requires: python-pbr, we're giving up patching that out in Fedora/RDO OpenStack packages.