Bug 1230445

Issues:
=======
- 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.
  Note: License file LICENSE is marked as %doc instead of %license
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text

- "rm -rf %{buildroot}" is not necessary.

- "true" is not necessary, just leave it empty

- You need a dependency on python in the binary package.

(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #1)
> - You need a dependency on python in the binary package.
The best way to do that would be to change the first line of the script to have
#!%{__python2} (or %{__python3} if it works with python 3). Then the dependency will be added automatically.

Hello Zbigniew,
thanks for the comments.

Updated package:
Spec URL: https://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/officeparser.spec
SRPM URL: https://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/officeparser-0.20140818-2.fc21.src.rpm

Best regards
Michal Ambroz

Oops, something didn't go right with the substitution. You need BuildRequires: python2-devel.

Hello Zbigniew,
thanks for spotting that.

Updated package:
Spec URL: https://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/officeparser.spec
SRPM URL: https://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/officeparser-0.20140818-3.fc21.src.rpm

Best regards
Michal Ambroz

Please, rebuild the package after making changes ;)

officeparser.noarch: W: tag-in-description C BuildRequires:
officeparser.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/bin/officeparser.py %{__python2}

Ping?

Hi,
Updated package:
Spec URL: https://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/officeparser.spec
SRPM URL: https://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/officeparser-0.20140818-4.fc21.src.rpm


Position of the BuldRequires was wrong - sorry I was too fast placing that.

But I did rebuild in my environment before posting and rpmlint didn't have any problems with wrong-script-interpreter. I have also checked the /usr/bin/officeparser.py and interpretter there in my environment (FC21) was #!/usr/bin/python2.

Please what is your environment? Does it know macro %{__python2} ?

Michal Ambroz

(In reply to Michal Ambroz from comment #8)
> Please what is your environment? Does it know macro %{__python2} ?
This macro is provided by python2-devel package. That is why you need the dependency. Now that you have the dependency, everything should work.

+ license is OK
+ license file present
+ python guidelines are used
+ macros are used
+ spec file is sane
+ name is OK
+ requires and provides are OK
+ rmplit output is harmless

Package is APPROVED.

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: officeparser-0.20140818-4.fc23.noarch.rpm
          officeparser-0.20140818-4.fc23.src.rpm
officeparser.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US py -> pt, p, y
officeparser.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary officeparser.py
officeparser.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US py -> pt, p, y
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
officeparser.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US py -> pt, p, y
officeparser.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary officeparser.py
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

OK, changing the status so this does not clutter up my search results.

Oops ... sorry I forgot to progress on the package. Will do.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: officeparser
Short Description: Parse the format of OLE compound documents used by MS Office applications
Upstream URL: https://github.com/unixfreak0037/officeparser
Owners: mambroz
Branches: f21 f22 f23 epel7

mambroz is not a member of the Packager group

Oops ... sorry - second service.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: officeparser
Short Description: Parse the format of OLE compound documents used by MS Office applications
Upstream URL: https://github.com/unixfreak0037/officeparser
Owners: rebus
Branches: f21 f22 f23 epel7

Git done (by process-git-requests).

officeparser-0.20140818-4.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-15441

officeparser-0.20140818-4.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-15442

officeparser-0.20140818-4.fc21 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 21. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-15443

officeparser-0.20140818-4.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 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 officeparser'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-15443

officeparser-0.20140818-4.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 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 officeparser'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-15442

officeparser-0.20140818-4.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 officeparser'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-15441

officeparser-0.20140818-4.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

officeparser-0.20140818-4.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

officeparser-0.20140818-4.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.