Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-persistent/python-persistent.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-persistent/python-persistent-4.0.8-1.fc21.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: This package contains a generic persistence implementation for Python. It forms the core protocol for making objects interact transparently with a database such as python-ZODB3.
I have updated this package to remove the %clean script and conditionalize the python 3 build, as was done for python-repoze-sphinx-autointerface. New URLs: Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-persistent/python-persistent.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-persistent/python-persistent-4.0.8-2.fc21.src.rpm
Note: this is an unofficial/preliminary review. I am new to this process, but I hope this is useful. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [-]: Package contains no static executables. [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 62 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bmorbach/fedora-review/1102950-python- persistent/licensecheck.txt --> the docs seem to include jquery, which is is under the MIT license (https://jquery.org/license/) [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages, /usr/lib64/python3.4, /usr/include/python3.4m --> I think python3.4 owns this on rawhide. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/python3.4/site- packages, /usr/lib64/python3.4, /usr/include/python2.7, /usr/include/python3.4m [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site- packages/persistent(python-persistent, python-ZODB3) --> fine, as this was split out from python-ZODB3. [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. --> I think python doesn't do that, but can the docs be built in parallel? [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. [x]: 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. [!]: Package does not generate any conflict. --> python-persistent conflicts with python-ZODB3 but I guess that will be fixed by https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100747 [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. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 20480 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]: 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: [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required --> I think fedora-review is getting confused here, I don't see a %clean [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python- persistent-devel , python-persistent-doc , python3-persistent , python3 -persistent-devel , python3-persistent-doc [?]: 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. [?]: 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]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- > Checking: python-persistent-4.0.8-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm > python-persistent-devel-4.0.8-2.fc21.noarch.rpm > python-persistent-doc-4.0.8-2.fc21.noarch.rpm > python3-persistent-4.0.8-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm > python3-persistent-devel-4.0.8-2.fc21.noarch.rpm > python3-persistent-doc-4.0.8-2.fc21.noarch.rpm > python-persistent-4.0.8-2.fc21.src.rpm > python-persistent-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation > python-persistent-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python-persistent-doc/_static/jquery.js I don't think this is relevant. It is a minimized file without any whitespace > python3-persistent.x86_64: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/persistent/__pycache__/mapping.cpython-34.pyo expected 3260 (3.4), found 3310 (unknown) > ... > <lots of those> > ... > python3-persistent.x86_64: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/persistent/__pycache__/picklecache.cpython-34.pyo expected 3260 (3.4), found 3310 (unknown) I think those are due to the rawhide mock build having a different python version? > python3-persistent-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation Seems to be fine, as it is all in the -doc subpackage > python3-persistent-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python3-persistent-doc/_static/jquery.js See above > Diff spec file in url and in SRPM > --------------------------------- > --- /home/bmorbach/fedora-review/1102950-python-persistent/srpm/python-persistent.spec 2014-06-23 17:08:10.826578039 +0200 > +++ /home/bmorbach/fedora-review/1102950-python-persistent/srpm-unpacked/python-persistent.spec 2014-06-03 18:34:10.000000000 +0200 > @@ -45,8 +45,4 @@ > BuildArch: noarch > > -# Can be removed once Fedora 20 reaches EOL > -Obsoletes: python-ZODB3-devel < 3.11.0-1%{?dist} > -Provides: python-ZODB3-devel = %{version}-%{release} > - > %description devel > Header files for building applications that use %{name}. Not sure what went wrong here Requires -------- python-persistent (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython2.7.so.1.0()(64bit) python(abi) python-zope-interface(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) python3-persistent-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python3-persistent python3-persistent-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python-persistent python3-persistent (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython3.4m.so.1.0()(64bit) python(abi) python3-zope-interface(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) python-persistent-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python-persistent python-persistent-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python-persistent > Unversioned so-files > -------------------- > python-persistent: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/persistent/_timestamp.so > python-persistent: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/persistent/cPersistence.so > python-persistent: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/persistent/cPickleCache.so > python3-persistent: /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/persistent/_timestamp.cpython-34m.so > python3-persistent: /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/persistent/cPersistence.cpython-34m.so > python3-persistent: /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/persistent/cPickleCache.cpython-34m.so These are fine as they are python extensions Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/persistent/persistent-4.0.8.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 678902217c5370d33694c6dc95b89e1e6284b4dc41f04c056326194a3f6f3e22 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 678902217c5370d33694c6dc95b89e1e6284b4dc41f04c056326194a3f6f3e22 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
Thank you for the review, Benedikt. (In reply to Benedikt Morbach from comment #2) > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: > "Unknown or generated". 62 files have unknown license. Detailed output > of > licensecheck in /home/bmorbach/fedora-review/1102950-python- > persistent/licensecheck.txt > > --> the docs seem to include jquery, which is is under the MIT license > (https://jquery.org/license/) The jquery situation is a little bit of a mess. The source tarball does not include jquery, but it is inserted into the final binary package by python-sphinx. There is an effort under way to let packages like this one share a jquery implementation; see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/jQuery. Once that work lands in Rawhide, I will switch over to it, and there will be no jquery file in this package any more. > [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages, > /usr/lib64/python3.4, /usr/include/python3.4m > > --> I think python3.4 owns this on rawhide. Yes, the python3-libs package owns all 3 directories. I do not know why fedora-review is complaining. I have filed this as bug 1112409. > [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. > > --> I think python doesn't do that, but can the docs be built in > parallel? Actually, if you look in the build log, you'll see that the C files are built with the normal Fedora CFLAGS. But you seem to be talking about make's -j flag, invoked with the %{?_smp_mflags} macro. I could add it, but it wouldn't have any effect. There is only one make target, which invokes sphinxbuild, so there is nothing to parallelize. > [!]: Package does not generate any conflict. > > --> python-persistent conflicts with python-ZODB3 > but I guess that will be fixed by > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100747 Right. > [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) > Note: %clean present but not required > > --> I think fedora-review is getting confused here, I don't see a %clean I have filed this as bug 1112410. > > python3-persistent.x86_64: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/persistent/__pycache__/mapping.cpython-34.pyo expected 3260 (3.4), found 3310 (unknown) > > ... > > <lots of those> > > ... > > python3-persistent.x86_64: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/persistent/__pycache__/picklecache.cpython-34.pyo expected 3260 (3.4), found 3310 (unknown) > I think those are due to the rawhide mock build having a different python > version? This is bug 1102846, which doesn't appear to have a fix backported to Fedora 20. > > Diff spec file in url and in SRPM > > --------------------------------- > > --- /home/bmorbach/fedora-review/1102950-python-persistent/srpm/python-persistent.spec 2014-06-23 17:08:10.826578039 +0200 > > +++ /home/bmorbach/fedora-review/1102950-python-persistent/srpm-unpacked/python-persistent.spec 2014-06-03 18:34:10.000000000 +0200 > > @@ -45,8 +45,4 @@ > > BuildArch: noarch > > > > -# Can be removed once Fedora 20 reaches EOL > > -Obsoletes: python-ZODB3-devel < 3.11.0-1%{?dist} > > -Provides: python-ZODB3-devel = %{version}-%{release} > > - > > %description devel > > Header files for building applications that use %{name}. > Not sure what went wrong here That just means that I'm an idiot. :-) I made a last minute change to the spec file, rebuilt, pushed the new spec file to my web page and forgot to push the newly built source RPM as well. I have fixed that now. Thanks for catching this mistake.
In accordance with the policy for stalled package reviews (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews), I note that Björn has not commented on this bug in over 1 month. Björn, please respond within the next 1 week.
What's...going on here?
Apparently nothing. Per the stalled package review policy, I am resetting this bug back to the available state.
This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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: "Unknown or generated". 62 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/nmavrogi/review/review-python- persistent/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages, /usr/lib64/python3.4, /usr/include/python3.4m [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/python3.4/site- packages, /usr/lib64/python3.4, /usr/include/python2.7, /usr/include/python3.4m [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site- packages/persistent(python-ZODB3) That Looks like an issue of fedora-review; thanks for filling #1112409. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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. [x]: 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. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 20480 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]: 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: [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python- persistent-devel , python-persistent-doc , python3-persistent , python3 -persistent-devel , python3-persistent-doc [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. [?]: 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]: 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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-persistent-4.0.8-2.fc22.x86_64.rpm python-persistent-devel-4.0.8-2.fc22.noarch.rpm python-persistent-doc-4.0.8-2.fc22.noarch.rpm python3-persistent-4.0.8-2.fc22.x86_64.rpm python3-persistent-devel-4.0.8-2.fc22.noarch.rpm python3-persistent-doc-4.0.8-2.fc22.noarch.rpm python-persistent-4.0.8-2.fc22.src.rpm python-persistent-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation python-persistent-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python-persistent-doc/_static/jquery.js python3-persistent-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-persistent-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python3-persistent-doc/_static/jquery.js 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-persistent python3-persistent-devel python3-persistent-doc python3-p ersistent python-persistent-devel python-persistent-doc python3-persistent-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-persistent-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python3-persistent-doc/_static/jquery.js python-persistent-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation python-persistent-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python-persistent-doc/_static/jquery.js 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python-persistent (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython2.7.so.1.0()(64bit) python(abi) python-zope-interface(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) python3-persistent-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python3-persistent python3-persistent-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python-persistent python3-persistent (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython3.4m.so.1.0()(64bit) python(abi) python3-zope-interface(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) python-persistent-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python-persistent python-persistent-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python-persistent Provides -------- python-persistent: python-persistent python-persistent(x86-64) python3-persistent-devel: python3-persistent-devel python3-persistent-doc: python3-persistent-doc python3-persistent: python3-persistent python3-persistent(x86-64) python-persistent-devel: python-ZODB3-devel python-persistent-devel python-persistent-doc: python-persistent-doc Unversioned so-files -------------------- python-persistent: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/persistent/_timestamp.so python-persistent: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/persistent/cPersistence.so python-persistent: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/persistent/cPickleCache.so python3-persistent: /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/persistent/_timestamp.cpython-34m.so python3-persistent: /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/persistent/cPersistence.cpython-34m.so python3-persistent: /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/persistent/cPickleCache.cpython-34m.so Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/persistent/persistent-4.0.8.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 678902217c5370d33694c6dc95b89e1e6284b4dc41f04c056326194a3f6f3e22 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 678902217c5370d33694c6dc95b89e1e6284b4dc41f04c056326194a3f6f3e22 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (b99027e) last change: 2014-07-14 Package looks good.
Thank you very much for the review, Nikos.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-persistent Short Description: Translucent persistent python objects Upstream URL: http://www.zodb.org/ Owners: jjames Branches: f21 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
This package has been built for Rawhide and F21.