Bug 1202303

I'll take this.

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

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

===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/mstuchli/fedora_review/1202303-python-colour-
     runner/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.3
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.3,
     /usr/lib/python3.3/site-packages
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: 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
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: 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 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:
[ ]: 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]: 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.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3
     -colour-runner
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[ ]: %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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python-colour-runner-0.0.4-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
          python3-colour-runner-0.0.4-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
          python-colour-runner-0.0.4-1.fc20.src.rpm
python-colour-runner.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unittest -> unit test, unit-test, unities
python-colour-runner.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unittest -> unit test, unit-test, unities
python-colour-runner.noarch: W: no-documentation
python3-colour-runner.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unittest -> unit test, unit-test, unities
python3-colour-runner.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unittest -> unit test, unit-test, unities
python3-colour-runner.noarch: W: no-documentation
python-colour-runner.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unittest -> unit test, unit-test, unities
python-colour-runner.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unittest -> unit test, unit-test, unities
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.




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


Requires
--------
python3-colour-runner (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3-blessings
    python3-pygments

python-colour-runner (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python-blessings
    python-pygments



Provides
--------
python3-colour-runner:
    python3-colour-runner

python-colour-runner:
    python-colour-runner



Source checksums
----------------
https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/c/colour-runner/colour-runner-0.0.4.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 10674157ee0a7a1d1db541f9815effee849259252c54ba0933fe3292a3db48be
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 10674157ee0a7a1d1db541f9815effee849259252c54ba0933fe3292a3db48be

Looks good to me, approved!

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: python-colour-runner
Short Description: Colour formatting for unittest test output
Upstream URL: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/colour-runner
Owners: rkuska
Branches: f21 f22
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

python-colour-runner-0.0.4-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-colour-runner-0.0.4-1.fc21

python-colour-runner-0.0.4-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-colour-runner-0.0.4-1.fc22

python-colour-runner-0.0.4-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository.

python-colour-runner-0.0.4-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.

python-colour-runner-0.0.4-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.