Spec URL: http://data.hybridcluster.net/fedora-scratch/python-idna.spec SRPM URL: http://data.hybridcluster.net/fedora-scratch/python-idna-0.8-1.fc20.src.rpm Koji URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7134580 Fedora Account System Username: tomprince Description: A library to support the Internationalised Domain Names in Applications (IDNA) protocol as specified in RFC 5891 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5891>.
Things that need fixing: - Be more specfic about .egg-info directories. - Use python2-devel instead of python-devel.
https://github.com/kjd/idna/issues/5
Just quick review for start: License need to be: License: BSD and Python and <something> where something is Unicode, but I could not find it in list of approved licenses: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing and UCD is not similar to actual license on Unicode site. What code in this module actually use that Unicode license?
Cleared by: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2014-October/002504.html I.e. it should be: License: BSD and Python and Unicode Otherwise it looks good to me.
Ping. Any progress here?
Updated spec: https://github.com/ClusterHQ/fedora-packages/raw/2b3f62d57594440aee43fdba46a6775185f0b8e6/python-idna.spec
It is good habit to provide both update spec file and src.rpm. 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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/python-idna/licensecheck.txt [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [-]: 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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 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]: 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 ===== 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-idna [?]: 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. APPROVED I just sponsored you to Fedora Packager GIT Commit Group. Welcome to Fedora! I will be watching your first steps, and if you are not sure about some process do not hesitate to ask. Either me directly or on https://lists.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel mailing list. Beside finishing the package review you should study those two chapters: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Package_Maintainers?rd=PackageMaintainers#Resources_for_Fedora_Package_Collection_contributors
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-idna Short Description: Internationalised Domain Names in Applications (IDNA) Upstream URL: https://github.com/kjd/idna Owners: tomprince Branches: f21 f22 epel7 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests). Note: there's not any f22 branches yet, that will not happen util we branch f22 next year.
python-idna-1.0-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-idna-1.0-1.fc21
python-idna-1.0-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository.
python-idna-1.0-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.