Spec URL: http://paragn.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SPECS/dnf-langpacks.spec SRPM URL: http://paragn.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SRPMS/dnf-langpacks-0.1.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: dnf-langpacks is a plugin for DNF that looks for langpacks for your native language for packages you install. Fedora Account System Username: pnemade
koji scratch build -> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7034806 Right now one can only check available languages in this release. Soon I will be adding other dnf commands. One can test this package by installing and using command "dnf langavailable" to get list of all available languages.
Spec URL: http://paragn.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SPECS/dnf-langpacks.spec SRPM URL: http://paragn.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SRPMS/dnf-langpacks-0.3.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Added langinfo and langlist commands. Copr repo -> http://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/pnemade/dnf-langpacks/
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. It would be good to add a license header to langpacks.py since it is under GPL. (This doesn't block the review but I do recommend this.) [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". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/petersen/pkgreview/1107944-dnf- langpacks/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages /dnf-plugins(dnf) Is this okay? Since the package requires dnf anyway it seems dnf-langpacks doesn't need to own this dir. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: 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. [x]: 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 30720 bytes in 3 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: dnf-langpacks-0.3.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm dnf-langpacks-0.3.0-1.fc21.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint dnf-langpacks 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- dnf-langpacks (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dnf langtable python(abi) Provides -------- dnf-langpacks: dnf-langpacks Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/pnemade/dnf-langpacks/archive/0.3.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cce62839ec2ac9a672593461047a21e9b2da2656a06c917ce5816bc79ca82ffc CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cce62839ec2ac9a672593461047a21e9b2da2656a06c917ce5816bc79ca82ffc 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 1107944 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
1) Added license header to upstream -> http://git.io/gKYPTQ 2) dnf-langpacks will need dnf package at the time of installation. The dnf package already installs path %{python2_sitelib}/dnf-plugins So, there will not be any directory ownership issue.
(In reply to Parag from comment #4) > 1) Added license header to upstream -> http://git.io/gKYPTQ Thanks > 2) dnf-langpacks will need dnf package at the time of installation. The dnf > package already installs path > %{python2_sitelib}/dnf-plugins > So, there will not be any directory ownership issue. Cool, looks fine to me: sorry I think I misread the fedora-review comments as double-ownership. Package is APPROVED
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: dnf-langpacks Short Description: Langpacks plugin for dnf Upstream URL: https://github.com/pnemade/dnf-langpacks Owners: pnemade Branches: f20 f21 epel7 InitialCC: i18n-team
Git done (by process-git-requests).
dnf-langpacks-0.3.0-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dnf-langpacks-0.3.0-1.fc20
dnf-langpacks-0.3.0-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
dnf-langpacks-0.3.0-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.