Spec URL: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-taskreport/python-taskreport.spec SRPM URL: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-taskreport/python-taskreport-1.2.1-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Taskreport is a simple tool to generate HTML reports from your Taskwarrior task list and send them by email. The list of features includes: - generating an HTML report containing the sections defined in the configuration file. - sending the report to one or more email addresses (using the SMTP credentials defined in the configuration file). - outputting the report to a local file. - customizing the generated HTML with a template (using the Jinja template engine). - in-lining the CSS inside the HTML so that email clients which do not support external CSS can render the report gracefully. Fedora Account System Username: ankursinha
SPEC should use python2_sitelib and python2_sitearch per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros I would recommend removing the editorial comments from the description section, as the opinion doesn't really fit with a package description. I would be tempted to trim the description all the way down to just "inlinestyler is an easy way to locally inline CSS into an HTML email message." But if you really want to keep the longer description, at least trim the following from: """ The general solution is to use an in-lining service, which takes a message with the CSS placed externally, and rewrites it so that all CSS is applied to the individual elements. The most widely used of these services - and as far as I can tell, the one that powers CampaignMonitor - is Premailer. It's a great service, and the guys behind it put a lot of work into keeping it up to date with the most recent discoveries in what works and what doesn't. """ to: """ The general solution is to use an in-lining service, which takes a message with the CSS placed externally, and rewrites it so that all CSS is applied to the individual elements. The most widely used of these services is Premailer. """
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. [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 10240 bytes in 4 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. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep [!]: Python macros must be explicitly versioned per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros ===== SHOULD items ===== Specific: [x]: Recommended rewording of description to remove long opinion statements: "inlinestyler is an easy way to locally inline CSS into an HTML email message." 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. [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. [-]: 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). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-inlinestyler-0.1.7-1.fc21.noarch.rpm python-inlinestyler-0.1.7-1.fc21.src.rpm python-inlinestyler.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Inlines -> In lines, In-lines, Inline python-inlinestyler.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Inlines -> In lines, In-lines, Inline 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-inlinestyler python-inlinestyler.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Inlines -> In lines, In-lines, Inline 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python-inlinestyler (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-cssutils python-lxml Provides -------- python-inlinestyler: python-inlinestyler Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/i/inlinestyler/inlinestyler-0.1.7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 17d2e0066c0a26e3872789bd322bde684451c3476cbc39064cca3852013d4465 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 17d2e0066c0a26e3872789bd322bde684451c3476cbc39064cca3852013d4465 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-devel-x86_64 -b 1094041 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
Bah. Attached the wrong fedorareview report to this bug -- mixed up the bugs for your various packages. One second...
Starting again: Per the comment at the top of the SPEC, "python_sitearch" should not be defined as this is a noarch RPM. SPEC should use python2_sitelib per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros
Hmm. Problem: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/python-jinja says that python-jinja is deprecated in f21, and http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=5935 shows that it is not included in f21. This seems to be why fedora-review is failing to build even when I specify the local directory that contains the python-inlinestyler that I have built. However, looking at taskreport.py shows that it actually wants python-jinja2: """ from jinja2 import FileSystemLoader, Environment """ ... and python-jinja2 is available in f21, f20, and f19 (and EPEL6 and EPEL5 if those are desired).
Hi Dan, Thanks for the review. Updated spec/srpm: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-taskreport/python-taskreport.spec http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-taskreport/python-taskreport-1.2.1-1.fc21.src.rpm * Tue May 06 2014 Ankur Sinha <ankursinha AT fedoraproject DOT org> 1.2.1-1 - Corrected python directory macros - Corrected requires to python-jinna2 - Initial rpm build Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur