Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Twitter client for the console, a text client for twitter accounts.
spec: http://villadalmine.fedorapeople.org/turses.spec srpm: http://villadalmine.fedorapeople.org/turses-0.2.22-1.fc19.src.rpm
Good, I packaged it in the last year. But please use review template to submit packages please, don't try to invent any custom review bug, like this one, from comment 0 I would think that this is spam. FAS id? Not everyone can remember everyone. Bad summary, bad description. What do first 6 lines do in the spec? They are pointless here. Please scratch a build in koji.
fasid: villadalmine http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6797361 an error with tweepy (Requirement not accomplished, missing update to 2.2) need to contact packager of tweepy maybe
(In reply to Rino Rondan from comment #3) > fasid: villadalmine > > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6797361 > > an error with tweepy (Requirement not accomplished, missing update to 2.2) > > need to contact packager of tweepy maybe It's not "maybe", it's "MUST". Please open a bug against tweepy and block this one if you want to package it. Also IIRC nose is also a BR of this package.
I've packaged the latest version of tweepy, and has sent to the packager the link of my fedorapeople, Just wait
Ok tweepy has been updated by me in rawhide and f20, please go ahead.
[restaurador@/etc/yum.repos.d $] sudo yum info tweepy --disablerepo="*" --enablerepo=rawhide Loaded plugins: langpacks, refresh-packagekit Available Packages Name : tweepy Arch : noarch Version : 2.0 Release : 2.fc20 Size : 56 k Repo : rawhide/x86_64 Summary : Twitter library for python URL : http://pypi.python.org/pypi/tweepy/ License : MIT Description : A library for accessing the Twitter.com API. Supports OAuth, covers the : entire API, and streaming API. let me know when it will be available and i will update my spec and sources Thanks!!! Regards
updated --> http://villadalmine.fedorapeople.org/turses.spec http://villadalmine.fedorapeople.org/turses-0.2.22-3.fc20.src.rpm
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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 23 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck: Apache (v2.0) ------------- turses-0.2.22/turses/api/base.py Unknown or generated -------------------- turses-0.2.22/setup.py turses-0.2.22/tests/__init__.py turses-0.2.22/tests/test_api.py turses-0.2.22/tests/test_config.py turses-0.2.22/tests/test_core.py turses-0.2.22/tests/test_meta.py turses-0.2.22/tests/test_models.py turses-0.2.22/tests/test_session.py turses-0.2.22/tests/test_ui.py turses-0.2.22/tests/test_utils.py turses-0.2.22/turses/__init__.py turses-0.2.22/turses/api/__init__.py turses-0.2.22/turses/api/backends.py turses-0.2.22/turses/api/debug.py turses-0.2.22/turses/api/helpers.py turses-0.2.22/turses/cli.py turses-0.2.22/turses/config.py turses-0.2.22/turses/core.py turses-0.2.22/turses/meta.py turses-0.2.22/turses/models.py turses-0.2.22/turses/session.py turses-0.2.22/turses/ui.py turses-0.2.22/turses/utils.py [x]: 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]: 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 40960 bytes in 2 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]: 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. [!]: 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). [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. [-]: %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). Rpmlint ------- Checking: turses-0.2.22-3.fc21.noarch.rpm turses-0.2.22-3.fc21.src.rpm turses.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A Twitter client for the console. turses.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary turses turses.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A Twitter client for the console. turses.src:16: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 8, tab: line 16) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint turses turses.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A Twitter client for the console. turses.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary turses 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- turses (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python2 python(abi) Provides -------- turses: turses Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/t/turses/turses-0.2.22.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a3fbca4d82089fc9b863b1d7d90864ff64f488c773d514906984114f71db0fb7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a3fbca4d82089fc9b863b1d7d90864ff64f488c773d514906984114f71db0fb7 https://raw.githubusercontent.com/alejandrogomez/turses/master/LICENSE : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 700d0adc7b8127fcb1a2c0e9f6814b26939ea7d7ddb6c799202091d9a268043d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 700d0adc7b8127fcb1a2c0e9f6814b26939ea7d7ddb6c799202091d9a268043d Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -rvn turses-0.2.22-3.fc20.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 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 ------------------------------- Additionally, 1. Drop first 4 lines at the top of the spec, you are overriding the default. 2. Leave a blank line for each changelog entry. 3. Please expand the %description, you can peek at the pypi.
what i need to do with manual and apache2 license ? just add the type of license in spec ? And about manual do i need to create a manual ? https://villadalmine.fedorapeople.org/turses-0.2.22-4.fc20.src.rpm https://villadalmine.fedorapeople.org/turses.spec Regards
(In reply to Rino Rondan from comment #10) > what i need to do with manual and apache2 license ? just add the type of > license in spec ? I don't know about other solutions so far. ;) > And about manual do i need to create a manual ? No. But you can advise upstream to do that. > https://villadalmine.fedorapeople.org/turses-0.2.22-4.fc20.src.rpm > https://villadalmine.fedorapeople.org/turses.spec Will review again later, it depends on my time.
Hi, i create new spec for new version of turses (2.2.23) BUt i have a blocked package. raise VersionConflict(dist,req) # XXX put more info here pkg_resources.VersionConflict: (py 1.4.18 (/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages), Requirement.parse('py>=1.4.24')) [makerpm@restaurador SPECS]$ yum info python-py Loaded plugins: langpacks, refresh-packagekit Installed Packages Name : python-py Arch : noarch Version : 1.4.18 How i can continue to have the python-py more than 1.4.18 ... I need 1.4.24
added spec for new version that have blocked package.. https://villadalmine.fedorapeople.org/turses-new.spec
https://villadalmine.fedorapeople.org/turses-0.2.22-5.fc20.src.rpm https://villadalmine.fedorapeople.org/turses.spec
> How i can continue to have the python-py more than 1.4.18 ... I need 1.4.24 Development of packages in the distribution typically starts in Rawhide (git master and "rawhide" repository), and when/whether version upgrades will be propagated to stable dist releases depends on how it would affect stability (API, ABI, runtime, buildtime). There is 1.4.25 for F21 and Rawhide since Oct 11: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/python-py.git/tree/ http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=7479 If not, you would open a ticket against python-py: http://bugz.fedoraproject.org/python-py
I prepare turses 0.2.21 with older version of python-py when it will be ok, i will prepare new version for only Fedora 21. Regards! New specs and source for 0.2.21 of turses.. https://villadalmine.fedorapeople.org/turses-0.2.21-1.fc20.src.rpm https://villadalmine.fedorapeople.org/turses.spec
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the submitter to proceed with the review. If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take this ticket. Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket reviewer failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we reset the status and the assignee of this ticket.
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.