Spec URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org//repo_manager.spec SRPM URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org//repo_manager-0.1.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: repo_manager allows you to easily manage your RPM repositories. It helps you add or remove RPMs from your repositories, it allows you to 'upgrade' a RPM from one repo into another one (for example from testing to prod). Repo_manager can also give you some information about the state of your repositories (number of RPMs, SRPMs, duplicates) and clean them (ie: remove the duplicates while keeping the last X versions available, X being set by the user).
This package built on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7091995
I will take this.
Source0 is behind authentication - not public. Was it intentional to not use github url?
Yes it is intentional to not use github (something with their dynamic tarball generation which I do not like) but the Source0 URL was indeed invalid, that server does not have https... So instead I have update the spec file to rely on pypi. New spec: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/repo_manager.spec New srpm: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/repo_manager-0.1.0-2.fc20.src.rpm Thanks for looking into it :) PS: I'll ask for an EL-6 branch
Only one issue - repo_manager.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/repo_manager/__init__.py 0644L /usr/bin/env ---> This needs to be fixed. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mukundan/personal/pkgs/reviews/1114696-repo_manager/licensecheck.txt ---> This is not an issue here. GPL (v3 or later) ----------------- repo_manager-0.1.0/repo_manager/__init__.py repo_manager-0.1.0/repo_manager/repo_manager.py repo_manager-0.1.0/tests/__init__.py Unknown or generated -------------------- repo_manager-0.1.0/runtests.sh repo_manager-0.1.0/setup.py [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. ---> Usage of underscore is fine since the package is so named upstream. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Separators [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 51200 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: 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: [-]: 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. ---> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7110248 [-]: %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: repo_manager-0.1.0-2.fc21.noarch.rpm repo_manager-0.1.0-2.fc21.src.rpm repo_manager.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US repo -> rope, rep, reps repo_manager.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Repo -> Rep, Reno, Rep o repo_manager.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ie -> IE, i, e repo_manager.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/repo_manager/__init__.py 0644L /usr/bin/env ---> This needs to be fixed. repo_manager.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /etc/repo_manager/repo_manager.cfg.sample ---> This is a bogus error. This file is not a script but a configuration file. repo_manager.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary repo_manager repo_manager.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US repo -> rope, rep, reps repo_manager.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Repo -> Rep, Reno, Rep o repo_manager.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ie -> IE, i, e 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint repo_manager repo_manager.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US repo -> rope, rep, reps repo_manager.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Repo -> Rep, Reno, Rep o repo_manager.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ie -> IE, i, e repo_manager.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/repo_manager/__init__.py 0644L /usr/bin/env repo_manager.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /etc/repo_manager/repo_manager.cfg.sample repo_manager.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary repo_manager 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- repo_manager (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python createrepo python(abi) python-argparse python-setuptools python2 Provides -------- repo_manager: repo_manager Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/r/repo_manager/repo_manager-0.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : acc3dceeb550179a67fd363827f4c5feba13ae12be81080a30993cac1b71753f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : acc3dceeb550179a67fd363827f4c5feba13ae12be81080a30993cac1b71753f 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 1114696 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
* Thu Jul 17 2014 Pierre-Yves Chibon <pingou> - 0.1.0-3 - Drop shebang in repo_manager/__init__.py New spec: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/repo_manager.spec New srpm: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/repo_manager-0.1.0-2.fc20.src.rpm Thanks :)
I used the wrong url for the srpm (fixed here): New spec: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/repo_manager.spec New srpm: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/repo_manager-0.1.0-3.fc20.src.rpm
No more issues for me. Package APPROVED.
Thanks a bunch for the review :) New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: repo_manager Short Description: Manager your RPM repositories easily Upstream URL: https://github.com/pypingou/repo_manager Owners: pingou Branches: el6, epel7, f20 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
repo_manager-0.1.0-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/repo_manager-0.1.0-3.fc20
repo_manager-0.1.0-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/repo_manager-0.1.0-3.el6
Package repo_manager-0.1.0-3.fc20: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing repo_manager-0.1.0-3.fc20' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-8631/repo_manager-0.1.0-3.fc20 then log in and leave karma (feedback).
repo_manager-0.1.0-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
repo_manager-0.1.0-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.