Bug 819687
| Summary: | Review Request: python-rtkit - Python Api for Request Tracker's REST interface | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Tomas Dabašinskas <tdabasin> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Christopher Meng <i> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | i, j, tdabasin |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | i:
fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+ |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | python-rtkit-0.6.0-1.fc19 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2013-12-10 06:11:25 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | 839142 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | |||
|
Description
Tomas Dabašinskas
2012-05-08 01:12:59 UTC
[tdabasin@iddqd ~]$ cd /tmp [tdabasin@iddqd tmp]$ wget https://github.com/downloads/T0MASD/python-rtkit/python-rtkit.spec --2012-05-08 12:17:02-- https://github.com/downloads/T0MASD/python-rtkit/python-rtkit.spec Resolving github.com... 207.97.227.239 Connecting to github.com|207.97.227.239|:443... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 302 Found Location: http://cloud.github.com/downloads/T0MASD/python-rtkit/python-rtkit.spec [following] --2012-05-08 12:17:03-- http://cloud.github.com/downloads/T0MASD/python-rtkit/python-rtkit.spec Resolving cloud.github.com... 205.251.203.20, 205.251.203.33, 205.251.203.68, ... Connecting to cloud.github.com|205.251.203.20|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 1232 (1.2K) [text/x-rpm-spec] Saving to: “python-rtkit.spec” 100%[=========================================================================>] 1,232 --.-K/s in 0s 2012-05-08 12:17:05 (58.8 MB/s) - “python-rtkit.spec” saved [1232/1232] [tdabasin@iddqd tmp]$ wget https://github.com/downloads/T0MASD/python-rtkit/python-rtkit-0.2.0-1.el6.src.rpm --2012-05-08 12:17:16-- https://github.com/downloads/T0MASD/python-rtkit/python-rtkit-0.2.0-1.el6.src.rpm Resolving github.com... 207.97.227.239 Connecting to github.com|207.97.227.239|:443... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 302 Found Location: http://cloud.github.com/downloads/T0MASD/python-rtkit/python-rtkit-0.2.0-1.el6.src.rpm [following] --2012-05-08 12:17:18-- http://cloud.github.com/downloads/T0MASD/python-rtkit/python-rtkit-0.2.0-1.el6.src.rpm Resolving cloud.github.com... 205.251.203.204, 205.251.203.20, 205.251.203.33, ... Connecting to cloud.github.com|205.251.203.204|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 15968 (16K) [application/x-rpm] Saving to: “python-rtkit-0.2.0-1.el6.src.rpm” 100%[=========================================================================>] 15,968 81.8K/s in 0.2s 2012-05-08 12:17:19 (81.8 KB/s) - “python-rtkit-0.2.0-1.el6.src.rpm” saved [15968/15968] [tdabasin@iddqd tmp]$ rpmlint python-rtkit-0.2.0-1.el6.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [tdabasin@iddqd tmp]$ rpmlint python-rtkit.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [tdabasin@iddqd tmp]$ exit exit Script done, file is typescript [tdabasin@iddqd ~]$ cat typescript Script started on Tue 08 May 2012 12:16:45 PM EST [tdabasin@iddqd ~]$ cd /tmp [tdabasin@iddqd tmp]$ wget https://github.com/downloads/T0MASD/python-rtkit/python-rtkit.spec --2012-05-08 12:17:02-- https://github.com/downloads/T0MASD/python-rtkit/python-rtkit.spec Resolving github.com... 207.97.227.239 Connecting to github.com|207.97.227.239|:443... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 302 Found Location: http://cloud.github.com/downloads/T0MASD/python-rtkit/python-rtkit.spec [following] --2012-05-08 12:17:03-- http://cloud.github.com/downloads/T0MASD/python-rtkit/python-rtkit.spec Resolving cloud.github.com... 205.251.203.20, 205.251.203.33, 205.251.203.68, ... Connecting to cloud.github.com|205.251.203.20|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 1232 (1.2K) [text/x-rpm-spec] Saving to: “python-rtkit.spec” 100%[=========================================================================>] 1,232 --.-K/s in 0s 2012-05-08 12:17:05 (58.8 MB/s) - “python-rtkit.spec” saved [1232/1232] [tdabasin@iddqd tmp]$ wget https://github.com/downloads/T0MASD/python-rtkit/python-rtkit-0.2.0-1.el6.src.rpm --2012-05-08 12:17:16-- https://github.com/downloads/T0MASD/python-rtkit/python-rtkit-0.2.0-1.el6.src.rpm Resolving github.com... 207.97.227.239 Connecting to github.com|207.97.227.239|:443... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 302 Found Location: http://cloud.github.com/downloads/T0MASD/python-rtkit/python-rtkit-0.2.0-1.el6.src.rpm [following] --2012-05-08 12:17:18-- http://cloud.github.com/downloads/T0MASD/python-rtkit/python-rtkit-0.2.0-1.el6.src.rpm Resolving cloud.github.com... 205.251.203.204, 205.251.203.20, 205.251.203.33, ... Connecting to cloud.github.com|205.251.203.204|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 15968 (16K) [application/x-rpm] Saving to: “python-rtkit-0.2.0-1.el6.src.rpm” 100%[=========================================================================>] 15,968 81.8K/s in 0.2s 2012-05-08 12:17:19 (81.8 KB/s) - “python-rtkit-0.2.0-1.el6.src.rpm” saved [15968/15968] [tdabasin@iddqd tmp]$ rpmlint python-rtkit-0.2.0-1.el6.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [tdabasin@iddqd tmp]$ rpmlint python-rtkit.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. koji scratchbuild: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4061822 Hello,
I've done an informal review (as I'm not a sponsor, and my request for package maintainer is pending).
Why do you define a new macro %{srcname} if you could also just use %{name} after setting this in the first line?
You are inconsistent with your use of macro's: first you use %{srcname} and %{version} in %prep, but then you use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install.
You should not do rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT (or %(buildroot}) in %install, unless you want to package for el5, but you only provided an el6, so I am not sure of your intentions on this.
There are more errors/warning you can ignore if you are also doing this package for el5.
Why do you add the %defattr to %files, as this should be the default?
Is this packaging effort really from June 11 in 2009, or did you make a mistake in the Changelog?
I think you really should include documentation.
You could add %doc README.rst for that purpose.
You should ask upstream to include the license file.
Note: version 0.2.1 was released the day after you submitted this review request, maybe you should update your spec to use this one?
Package Review
==============
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
==== Generic ====
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[!]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[?]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging
for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
[x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST 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 %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[!]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint python-rtkit-0.2.0-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
python-rtkit.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
rpmlint python-rtkit-0.2.0-1.fc18.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/patrick/Documents/Development/Fedora/Packaging/Reviewing/python-rtkit/819687/python-rtkit-0.2.0.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : 69f325e74b6dbc75f8f3b1f1e9b173b3
MD5SUM upstream package : 69f325e74b6dbc75f8f3b1f1e9b173b3
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[!]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[!]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[!]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[!]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Note: %define srcname python-rtkit
Issues:
[!]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
[!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging
for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
See: None
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint python-rtkit-0.2.0-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
python-rtkit.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
rpmlint python-rtkit-0.2.0-1.fc18.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint
Generated by fedora-review 0.1.3
(In reply to comment #3) > Hello, > > I've done an informal review (as I'm not a sponsor, and my request for > package maintainer is pending). > > > Why do you define a new macro %{srcname} if you could also just use %{name} > after setting this in the first line? fixed > You are inconsistent with your use of macro's: first you use %{srcname} and > %{version} in %prep, but then you use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install. fixed > You should not do rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT (or %(buildroot}) in %install, > unless you want to package for el5, but you only provided an el6, so I am > not sure of your intentions on this. > There are more errors/warning you can ignore if you are also doing this > package for el5. fixed > > Why do you add the %defattr to %files, as this should be the default? > fixed > Is this packaging effort really from June 11 in 2009, or did you make a > mistake in the Changelog? fixed > > I think you really should include documentation. > You could add %doc README.rst for that purpose. > fixed > You should ask upstream to include the license file. > > Note: version 0.2.1 was released the day after you submitted this review > request, maybe you should update your spec to use this one? > The 0.2.1 adds support kerberos authentication, I will update the package once it gets approved I updated the srpm and spec file and ran the review myself: Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== Generic ==== [ ]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 [ ]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [ ]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL [ ]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [ ]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [ ]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [ ]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [ ]: MUST 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 %doc. [ ]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [ ]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict. [ ]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [ ]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [ ]: MUST Package installs properly. [ ]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. rpmlint python-rtkit-0.2.0-1.fc18.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint python-rtkit-0.2.0-1.fc18.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/bne/tdabasin/819687/python-rtkit-0.2.0.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : 69f325e74b6dbc75f8f3b1f1e9b173b3 MD5SUM upstream package : 69f325e74b6dbc75f8f3b1f1e9b173b3 [ ]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [ ]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [ ]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [ ]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [ ]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [ ]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [ ]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [ ]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [ ]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. Issues: [!]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 [!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL Generated by fedora-review 0.1.2 I think you should bump your version number and add a changelog, because you published the previous version. Other then that, I approve it (informally). But since you are not sponsored into the packager group yet for as far as I can see, and I'm not a sponsor, I cannot approve it formally. Package updated: Spec URL: https://github.com/downloads/T0MASD/python-rtkit/python-rtkit.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/downloads/T0MASD/python-rtkit/python-rtkit-0.2.0-2.el6.src.rpm I'll assume that because you don't clean the buildroot in %install that you don't intend to submit this for EL5. Given that, here's a review: The first line of the spec is pointless regardless of what releases you intend to package for. The python_sitelib define at the top is unnecessary; all Fedora and EL6 already have this. BuildRoot: is unnecessary, as is the %clean section. The Summary: and %description are rather deficient; neither really tells me much about the package. Unfortunately these appear to come from upstream. I'll suggest these: Summary: A python interface to the Request Tracker API %description A Python module providing access to the Best Practical Request Tracker (RT) REST interface. Not the best, I guess, but better than what's there. The package is out of date; the current version appears to be 0.2.4. I'll go ahead and take this for review, but you should update to the current version before I get any further into it. Unless, of course, you have a reason for not updating to the current version. Jason,
Thanks for taking this review, I have updated the spec file as you suggested.
ran fedora-reveiw:
Issues:
[!]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
[!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL
package is not intended for EL5
Spec URL: https://github.com/downloads/T0MASD/python-rtkit/python-rtkit.spec
SRPM URL: https://github.com/downloads/T0MASD/python-rtkit/python-rtkit-0.2.4-1.el6.src.rpm
If the package is not intended for EL5, I'm not sure why you keep leaving the BuildRoot: and %clean section in your spec. Is there some reason you don't want to remove them? Thanks for the feedback, I've updated the spec and srpm: Spec URL: https://github.com/downloads/T0MASD/python-rtkit/python-rtkit.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/downloads/T0MASD/python-rtkit/python-rtkit-0.2.4-2.el6.src.rpm OK, %clean is gone. But BuildRoot: is still there. At this point I have to assume there is some reason you want to keep it there, but I'm not sure what it would be. All current Fedora versions and RHEL6 ignore it completely, so it is pointless, but if you do have some justification then please provide it. Otherwise I have to wonder if you're just not paying attention to what I'm writing here. Jason, I'm sorry for missing the buildroot definition, I have just removed it and updated the srpm. Spec URL: https://github.com/downloads/T0MASD/python-rtkit/python-rtkit.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/downloads/T0MASD/python-rtkit/python-rtkit-0.2.4-3.el6.src.rpm OK, now there's another fun problem. At some point this grew a dependency on python-urllib2_kerberos which I don't see as being available in Fedora. It appears to have been retired about two years ago. I know I built and installed this earlier in the process but I'm not sure when it came in. Unfortunately lack of that package prevents me from doing a proper review of this one, and so I'm not sure how to proceed. Hi Jason, I thought python-urllib2_kerberos was in fedora repo. Python-urllib2_kerberos isn't required to run python rtkit. rtkit supports 3 auth methods: basic, cookie, kerberos. If urllib2 is not found and kerberos auth method is used an exception is thrown instructing to use pip install urllib2_kerberos: https://github.com/z4r/python-rtkit/blob/master/rtkit/authenticators.py#L64 Should I remove requires of python-urllib2_kerberos and work on getting it back to fedora? Well, according to the dead.package file in the repo it left Fedora for no reason other than it had no maintainer, so it could easily be revived. It just needs a fresh package review and some trickery to get the package unblocked. If you want to submit a review for it, please do so and I'll try to take care of it. I have less then a week before I go on vacation and I will not have much in the way of net access for most of it, though, so we'll have to hurry (or find someone else to review). Jason, I've repackaged python-urllib2_kerberos and added review request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839142 Removing needsponsor, I have sponsored Tomas. (In reply to comment #13) > OK, now there's another fun problem. At some point this grew a dependency > on python-urllib2_kerberos which I don't see as being available in Fedora. > It appears to have been retired about two years ago. I know I built and > installed this earlier in the process but I'm not sure when it came in. > Unfortunately lack of that package prevents me from doing a proper review of > this one, and so I'm not sure how to proceed. Jason, the build for python-urllib2_kerberos just been pushed to fedora[1] when you get a chance can you please resume the review process? [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839142 Many thanks, Tomas Great, I'll try to carve out some time soon. It's the beginning of the school year so things might be stalled until next week. Spec URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~tdabasin/python-rtkit/python-rtkit.spec SRPM URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~tdabasin/python-rtkit/python-rtkit-0.2.5-1.el6.src.rpm Jason, I've updated the pacakge to 0.2.5, I'd really appreciate if you could please review this when you get a chance. Many thanks! Hi all,
I think I have to use needinfo now.
My review:
1. Missing BuildRequires: python2-devel
2. %setup -q -n %{name}-%{version} can just be %setup -q
3. %{__python} --> %{__python2}
4. %{python_sitelib} --> %{python2_sitelib}
5. LATEST VERSION IS 0.6
6. URL should be http://z4r.github.io/python-rtkit/
No time at all; anyone else is free to review. Hi Tomas, want to continue or not? Hi Christopher, Many thanks for taking up this review, I'll get the package updated and ready for review next week. Cheers, Tomas ping. Spec URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~tdabasin/python-rtkit/python-rtkit.spec SRPM URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~tdabasin/python-rtkit/python-rtkit-0.6.0-1.fc19.src.rpm Christopher, I've updated the pacakge to 0.6.0 and fixed the spec Many thanks! 1. Remove bundled egginfo before build. 2. tests folder found, but no %check present. If you want to run the tests, following modules must be installed: pytest pytest-pep8 pytest-cov httpretty python-coveralls We need these to be packaged: pytest-pep8 pytest-cov httpretty python-coveralls I can submit them to the review, but I want to know if you need this package in dire need? If so I will skip test section(but I will package these deps as well, and please enable tests in the future); If not I will start working on deps now. 3. Fix this issue: python-rtkit.src:13: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 13) ------------ PACKAGE APPROVED. Please answer my questions above. Thanks. Hi Christopher, many thanks for the review and catching the %check I'm not in dire need to get the package out, but I agree let's get this package out and start working on packaging %check deps. I haven't bumped the spec version, just extended last rev message, the updated rpm: Spec URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~tdabasin/python-rtkit/python-rtkit.spec SRPM URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~tdabasin/python-rtkit/python-rtkit-0.6.0-1.fc19.src.rpm New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-rtkit Short Description: Python Api for Request Tracker's REST interface Owners: tdabasin Branches: f19 f20 el6 InitialCC: tdabasin Git done (by process-git-requests). python-rtkit-0.6.0-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-rtkit-0.6.0-1.fc19 python-rtkit-0.6.0-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository. python-rtkit-0.6.0-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. |