Bug 1224513

Could you please also build the man page (sphinx-build -b man) and add it to the rpm?

Also if this package runs with python3 it might be good to at least create both python-bash8 and python3-bash8 packges? (see last guidelines sent to fedora-devel)
If it does not run with python3, then it is okay.

AS it's blocking my packaging effort for eDeploy, I have updated this package to conform to the comment from Michele: added a man page and the python3 sub-package. You can find the modified package at:

Spec URL: https://flepied.fedorapeople.org/python-bash8.spec
SRPM URL: https://flepied.fedorapeople.org/python-bash8-0.1.1-2.fc24.src.rpm

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)", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/michele/Fedora/Packages/python-bash8
     /review-python-bash8/licensecheck.txt
[X]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[-]: 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 532480 bytes in 76 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 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]: 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]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     python3-bash8
[X]: Package functions as described.
[X]: Latest version is packaged.
[X]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[X ]: 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.
[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]: 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-bash8-0.1.1-2.fc22.noarch.rpm
          python3-bash8-0.1.1-2.fc22.noarch.rpm
          python-bash8-0.1.1-2.fc22.src.rpm
python-bash8.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.1-2.fc24 ['0.1.1-2.fc22', '0.1.1-2']
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
python-bash8.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.1-2.fc24 ['0.1.1-2.fc22', '0.1.1-2']
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.



Requires
--------
python-bash8 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)

python3-bash8 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3-pbr



Provides
--------
python-bash8:
    python-bash8

python3-bash8:
    python3-bash8



Source checksums
----------------
https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/b/bash8/bash8-0.1.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 0d7614862e3c9f7ac44ed197e04b43d7abbdb82c56288c2ad332d8e45ced03af
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0d7614862e3c9f7ac44ed197e04b43d7abbdb82c56288c2ad332d8e45ced03af


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n python-bash8
Buildroot used: fedora-22-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

Can you please fix the changelog to match the exact package version?
Also if you could add the %check section to a later upload, that'd be great

Thanks for the review, Michele! I have updated the spec file regarding your comments (%check and changelog).

Spec URL: https://flepied.fedorapeople.org/python-bash8.spec
SRPM URL: https://flepied.fedorapeople.org/python-bash8-0.1.1-3.fc24.src.rpm

Hi Frédéric,

(just going through my  backlog mail here) you just need to ask for the git repo now by setting the  fedora‑cvs flag to ? and a script will take care of the rest. See point 8 of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Contributor. If you're not a packager then I guess Haïkel will need to do that.

cheers,
Michele

No SCN request found.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: python-bash8
Short Description: A pep8 equivalent for bash scripts
Upstream URL: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/bash8
Owners: flepied 
Branches: fc23 epel7
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

@Frédéric: could you approve the F21 and F22 branches, we'll need them?
And please add apevec as owner too.

python-bash8-0.1.1-4.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-15194

python-bash8-0.1.1-4.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.\nIf you want to test the update, you can install it with \n su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update python-bash8'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-15194

python-bash8-0.1.1-4.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.