Spec URL: http://lsm5.fedorapeople.org/python-docker-registry-core/python-docker-registry-core.spec SRPM URL: http://lsm5.fedorapeople.org/python-docker-registry-core/SRPMS/python-docker-registry-core-1.0.6-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Core package for docker-registry (drivers) developers Fedora Account System Username: lsm5 $ rpmlint python-docker-registry-core.spec SRPMS/python-docker-registry-core-1.0.6-1.fc20.src.rpm RPMS/noarch/python-docker-registry-core-1.0.6-1.fc20.noarch.rpm 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7065101 (failed) Build on local machine succeeds though. RPM build errors: Not a directory: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python-docker-registry-core-1.0.6-1.fc21.noarch/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/docker_registry_core-1.0.6-py2.7.egg-info File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python-docker-registry-core-1.0.6-1.fc21.noarch/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/docker_registry_core-1.0.6-py2.7-nspkg.pth File not found by glob: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python-docker-registry-core-1.0.6-1.fc21.noarch/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/docker_registry_core-1.0.6-py2.7.egg-info/* Child return code was: 1
Marek, Vincent et.al. would anyone like to pick this up for review? Or know anyone who could volunteer?
I'm taking this.
I would change the %files section to something like this: %files %doc LICENSE README.md %dir %{python_sitelib}/docker_registry %{python_sitelib}/docker_registry/* %{python_sitelib}/docker_registry_core* This will make it buildable on Rawhide. Below is the formal review, I approve the package if you do the change above. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel False positive, you can ignore it. ===== 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. [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. [-]: 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: 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 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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-docker-registry-core-1.0.6-1.fc21.noarch.rpm python-docker-registry-core-1.0.6-1.fc21.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-docker-registry-core 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python-docker-registry-core (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python-docker-registry-core: python-docker-registry-core Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/d/docker-registry-core/docker-registry-core-1.0.6.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1f1b7a69cbdc8ad1e3c37aa5f3f4f6821edaa9a948bc07a508cc39ee7fc560d6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1f1b7a69cbdc8ad1e3c37aa5f3f4f6821edaa9a948bc07a508cc39ee7fc560d6 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-i386 -v -n python-docker-registry-core 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
Yup, works. Thanks! Spec URL: http://lsm5.fedorapeople.org/python-docker-registry-core/python-docker-registry-core.spec SRPM URL: http://lsm5.fedorapeople.org/python-docker-registry-core/SRPMS/python-docker-registry-core-1.0.6-2.fc21.src.rpm ------ New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-docker-registry-core Short Description: Core package for docker-registry (drivers) developers Upstream URL: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/docker-registry-core Owners: lsm5 mgoldman Branches: f19 f20 el6 InitialCC:
Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7074567
WARNING: "mgoldman" is not a valid FAS account. Please correct.
Corrected. Please find new request below. Thanks! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-docker-registry-core Short Description: Core package for docker-registry (drivers) developers Upstream URL: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/docker-registry-core Owners: lsm5 goldmann Branches: f19 f20 el6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
python-docker-registry-core-1.0.6-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-docker-registry-core-1.0.6-2.fc20
python-docker-registry-core-1.0.6-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-docker-registry-core-1.0.6-2.fc19
python-docker-registry-core-1.0.6-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-docker-registry-core-1.0.6-2.el6
python-docker-registry-core-1.0.6-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.
python-docker-registry-core-1.0.6-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
python-docker-registry-core-1.0.6-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
python-docker-registry-core-1.0.6-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.