Spec URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/fedwatch.spec SRPM URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/fedwatch-0.3-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Tool and library for watching fedmsg messages and running arbitrary scripts in a nice way. Think of fedwatch as simple converter from fedmsg json messages into shell arguments for scripts. Fedora Account System Username: sochotni current version is also available on copr: http://copr-fe.cloud.fedoraproject.org/coprs/sochotni/fedwatch/
Updated URLs: Spec URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/fedwatch.spec SRPM URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/fedwatch-0.4-1.fc21.src.rpm
I will take it. I will probably review only tomorrow morning (mostly) though.
Note that you'd have to first review bug 1079965
Yup! I was just going to add the comment - have it open in another tab. :)
Sorry for the delayed review. 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: "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mukundan/personal/pkgs/reviews/1079967-fedwatch/licensecheck.txt ---> No issues. [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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 5 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 %doc. [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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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]: 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. [ ]: 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 python- fedwatch [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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6792368 [-]: %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]: 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: fedwatch-0.4-1.fc21.noarch.rpm python-fedwatch-0.4-1.fc21.noarch.rpm fedwatch-0.4-1.fc21.src.rpm fedwatch.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US json -> son, j son fedwatch.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.3-1 ['0.4-1.fc21', '0.4-1'] fedwatch.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib fedwatch.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fedwatch fedwatch.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/fedwatch/examples/fedwatch.d/10-yum-koji-update.sh /bin/bash python-fedwatch.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) fedmsg -> feeding python-fedwatch.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fedmsg -> feeding python-fedwatch.noarch: W: no-documentation python-fedwatch.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/fedwatch.py 0644L /usr/bin/python fedwatch.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US json -> son, j son fedwatch.src:61: W: macro-in-comment %{name} 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 10 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-fedwatch fedwatch python-fedwatch.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) fedmsg -> feeding python-fedwatch.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fedmsg -> feeding python-fedwatch.noarch: W: no-documentation python-fedwatch.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/fedwatch.py 0644L /usr/bin/python ---> $ rpmlint -I non-executable-script non-executable-script: This text file contains a shebang or is located in a path dedicated for executables, but lacks the executable bits and cannot thus be executed. If the file is meant to be an executable script, add the executable bits, otherwise remove the shebang or move the file elsewhere. fedwatch.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US json -> son, j son fedwatch.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.3-1 ['0.4-1.fc21', '0.4-1'] ---> Please fix the changelog fedwatch.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib fedwatch.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fedwatch fedwatch.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/fedwatch/examples/fedwatch.d/10-yum-koji-update.sh /bin/bash $ rpmlint -I doc-file-dependency doc-file-dependency: An included file marked as %doc creates a possible additional dependency in the package. Usually, this is not wanted and may be caused by eg. example scripts with executable bits set included in the package's documentation. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python-fedwatch (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) fedwatch (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash /bin/sh /usr/bin/python config(fedwatch) fedmsg python-dpath python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure python-fedwatch systemd Provides -------- python-fedwatch: python-fedwatch fedwatch: config(fedwatch) fedwatch Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/f/fedwatch/fedwatch-0.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b7d2f24023ca815a8da3cbdbbd40d834c9eed59e0786f6ccf1215be7b4f71d48 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b7d2f24023ca815a8da3cbdbbd40d834c9eed59e0786f6ccf1215be7b4f71d48 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1079967 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
Hopefully I didn't miss anything... Spec URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/fedwatch.spec SRPM URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/fedwatch-0.4-2.fc21.src.rpm
I missed this in my earlier comment [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python and this (per my understanding) [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python- fedwatch All else look good. Package approved.
Thanks for the review New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: fedwatch Short Description: Tool for watching fedmsg messages and running arbitrary scripts Owners: sochotni Branches: f20 el6 el7 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
fedwatch-0.4-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fedwatch-0.4-2.el6
fedwatch-0.4-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fedwatch-0.4-2.fc20
fedwatch-0.4-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.
fedwatch-0.4-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
fedwatch-0.4-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.