Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python-sphinxcontrib-issuetracker.spec SRPM URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python-sphinxcontrib-issuetracker-0.11-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: A Sphinx extension to reference issues in issue trackers, either explicitly with an "issue" role or optionally implicitly by issue ids like #10 in plain text. Currently the following issue trackers are supported: * GitHub * BitBucket * Launchpad * Google Code * Debian BTS * Jira A simple API is provided to add support for other issue trackers. If you added support for a new tracker, please consider sending a patch to make your work available to other users of this extension. Fedora Account System Username: orion http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6754895
Just a few very minor issues: 1. Shouldn't these packages Requires: python-sphinx / python3-sphinx? 2. You might want to remove the last line of the spec file (an empty changelog entry) 3. *.rst files are intended for consumption by sphinx, rather than human consumption. While you can put CHANGES.rst and README.rst into %doc, wouldn't it be better to process them with sphinx and put the resulting HTML files into %doc? 4. Please use the new %license macro for F-21 and later, rather than putting LICENSE into %doc. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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: "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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]: 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. [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 102400 bytes in 24 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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: 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]: 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 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. [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: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [x]: %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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-sphinxcontrib-issuetracker-0.11-1.fc22.noarch.rpm python3-sphinxcontrib-issuetracker-0.11-1.fc22.noarch.rpm python-sphinxcontrib-issuetracker-0.11-1.fc22.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python3-sphinxcontrib-issuetracker python-sphinxcontri b-issuetracker 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python3-sphinxcontrib-issuetracker (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-sphinxcontrib-issuetracker (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-sphinxcontrib-issuetracker: python3-sphinxcontrib-issuetracker python-sphinxcontrib-issuetracker: python-sphinxcontrib-issuetracker Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/s/sphinxcontrib-issuetracker/sphinxcontrib-issuetracker-0.11.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 843753d8b5e989116378ab45ecccb368fb78dc56eaa1554ed25e4fbf22745f4e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 843753d8b5e989116378ab45ecccb368fb78dc56eaa1554ed25e4fbf22745f4e Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1089416 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 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
Thanks for the review. The .rst files seem like perfectly readable text files to me. I'd like to leave them as they are. * Tue Oct 7 2014 Orion Poplawski <orion.com> - 0.11-2 - Add Requires on python-requests, python-sphinx - Use %%license Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python-sphinxcontrib-issuetracker.spec SRPM URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python-sphinxcontrib-issuetracker-0.11-2.fc20.src.rpm
(In reply to Orion Poplawski from comment #2) > Thanks for the review. The .rst files seem like perfectly readable text > files to me. I'd like to leave them as they are. Personally, I'd rather see a hyperlinked image than this: .. image:: https://secure.travis-ci.org/lunaryorn/sphinxcontrib-issuetracker.png :target: http://travis-ci.org/lunaryorn/sphinxcontrib-issuetracker and I'd rather see hyperlinked text than this: - `GitHub <http://github.com>`_ - `BitBucket <http://bitbucket.org>`_ - `Launchpad <https://launchpad.net>`_ - `Google Code <http://code.google.com>`_ - `Debian BTS <http://bugs.debian.org>`_ - `Jira <http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira/>`_ but it's up to you. I see no other issues, so this package is APPROVED.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-sphinxcontrib-issuetracker Short Description: Sphinx integration with different issue trackers Upstream URL: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/sphinxcontrib-issuetracker Owners: orion Branches: f20 f21 epel7 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Checked in and built. Thanks everyone.