Bug 1225249

Hi Chaoyi, one initial non-blocking comment:  The .spec file link you provide goes to an HTML version of the specfile, which is nice for humans to read, but automated review programs choke on it (like "fedora-review -b 1225249").  Something to consider for future review requests.

Furthermore, I'll be your packaging sponsor and will take the review.

Hey again Chaoyi.  Here's an initial round of feedback.  This first list of [!] items are things that will need to be fixed before the package can be approved.

[!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
     The license is just a little unclear.  The spec file lists GPLv2+ while
     setup.py lists GPLv2. The files headers say GPLv2+.
[!]: 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.
     In the %files section, you should add the LICENSE file like this:
     %license LICENSE
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
     You're bundling fontawesome which is actually packaged for Fedora.
     You should remove it (in the spec file during the install phase, not in
     the upstream project) and replace it with a symlink to the system
     fontawesome package.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
     Usually, you add a version string at the end of changelog entries to
     indicate what release is what.  See this for an example:
     http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/python-ansi2html.git/tree/python-ansi2html.spec#n206
[!]: Package should be noarch.
     Add this line after your Source0 line:
     BuildArch:          noarch
[!]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
     You should do 'rm -rf *.egg*' at the end of the %prep section.
[!]: rpmlint is not happy:
     Take a look at the full output at the bottom, but these ones in particular
     stand out:
     > mote.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A meetbot log wrangler, providing a user-friendly interface for Fedora's logs.
     > mote.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C A Meetbot log wrangler, providing a user-friendly interface for Fedora Project's logs.
     > mote.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C Mote allows contributors to the Fedora Project to quickly search and find logs beneficial in keeping up to date with the project's activities.


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

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

===== 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.
[!]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
     upstream sources. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or
     generated". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/threebean/scratch/review-mote/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/httpd, /etc/httpd/conf.d
[-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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 10240 bytes in 1 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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:
[!]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
     Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?)
[x]: 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.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel

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

Generic:
[!]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
     Note: Package contains font files
[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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: 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]: 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 debuginfo package(s).
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: mote-0.0.4b2-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
          mote-0.0.4b2-1.fc20.src.rpm
mote.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) meetbot -> meet bot, meet-bot, meet
mote.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A meetbot log wrangler, providing a user-friendly interface for Fedora's logs.
mote.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C A Meetbot log wrangler, providing a user-friendly interface for Fedora Project's logs.
mote.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C Mote allows contributors to the Fedora Project to quickly search and find logs beneficial in keeping up to date with the project's activities.
mote.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
mote.x86_64: E: no-binary
mote.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mote
mote.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) meetbot -> meet bot, meet-bot, meet
mote.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A meetbot log wrangler, providing a user-friendly interface for Fedora's logs.
mote.src: E: description-line-too-long C A Meetbot log wrangler, providing a user-friendly interface for Fedora Project's logs.
mote.src: E: description-line-too-long C Mote allows contributors to the Fedora Project to quickly search and find logs beneficial in keeping up to date with the project's activities.
mote.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
mote.src: E: invalid-spec-name
mote.src: W: invalid-url Source0: mote-0.0.4b2.tar.gz
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 8 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: mote-debuginfo-0.0.4b2-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
mote-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
mote-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
mote-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
mote-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package
mote.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) meetbot -> meet bot, meet-bot, meet
mote.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A meetbot log wrangler, providing a user-friendly interface for Fedora's logs.
mote.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C A Meetbot log wrangler, providing a user-friendly interface for Fedora Project's logs.
mote.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C Mote allows contributors to the Fedora Project to quickly search and find logs beneficial in keeping up to date with the project's activities.
mote.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
mote.x86_64: E: no-binary
mote.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mote
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 5 warnings.



Requires
--------
mote (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python
    config(mote)
    memcached
    mod_wsgi
    python(abi)
    python-beautifulsoup4
    python-dateutil
    python-fedora
    python-fedora-flask
    python-flask
    python-memcached
    python-openid
    python-openid-cla
    python-openid-teams
    python-pip
    python-requests
    python2



Provides
--------
mote:
    config(mote)
    mote
    mote(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n mote
Buildroot used: fedora-20-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

Ralph,

Thanks for the comments and the suggestions. I've corrected most of the issues and fixed the inconsistencies you've noted (e.g GPLv2+ GPLv2).

The updated spec can be found at https://raw.githubusercontent.com/fedora-infra/mote/master/files/mote.spec

I have not had the opportunity to test my new spec in a VM yet, but I will give it a spin as soon as I get to and let you know how it turns out.

Okay. I've fixed the issues, pushed them to the repo, and tested the built packages. 

The spec can be found here: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/fedora-infra/mote/master/files/mote.spec

The build can be found here: https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/cydrobolt/mote/build/94810/

However, the package will not build for EPEL 6 with font files removed, as the fontawesome package is unavailable for EPEL 6. If we can upgrade value01 to RHEL 7, everything should work out. 

Otherwise, everything seems to be correct, and the F22 package installs and runs correctly in my VM.

Looks good to me!  Package Approved!

At this point you'll need to follow the scm admin request process:  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests

Feel free to ping me with any questions.  We can talk further about what to do about value01 later.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: mote
Short Description: A MeetBot log wrangler for the Fedora Project.
Upstream URL: http://github.com/fedora-infra/mote
Owners: cydrobolt
Branches: f21 f22 el6 epel7
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

This is in the distro now:  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?packages=mote