Spec URL: https://tonet666p.fedorapeople.org/python-flask-whooshalchemy.spec SRPM URL: https://tonet666p.fedorapeople.org/python-flask-whooshalchemy-0.56-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Hi, I just finished packaging up this Flask extension, and i would appreciate a review so that I can get it in to Fedora Extras. Flask-WhooshAlchemy is a Flask extension that integrates the text-search functionality of Whoosh with the ORM of SQLAlchemy for use in Flask applications. Fedora Account System Username: tonet666p
I am not yet a sponsor, so I can't sponsor you. I can, however, review your package. It seems to be in pretty good shape, except for the duplicated file. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/python2.7/site- packages/Flask_WhooshAlchemy-0.56-py2.7.egg-info See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles ===== 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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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. [-]: 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. [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 40960 bytes in 6 files. [!]: 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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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. [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-flask-whooshalchemy-0.56-1.fc21.noarch.rpm python3-flask-whooshalchemy-0.56-1.fc21.noarch.rpm python-flask-whooshalchemy-0.56-1.fc21.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python3-flask-whooshalchemy python-flask-whooshalchemy 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python3-flask-whooshalchemy (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-blinker python3-flask-sqlalchemy python3-sqlalchemy python3-whoosh python-flask-whooshalchemy (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-blinker python-flask-sqlalchemy python-sqlalchemy python-whoosh Provides -------- python3-flask-whooshalchemy: python3-flask-whooshalchemy python-flask-whooshalchemy: python-flask-whooshalchemy Source checksums ---------------- http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/F/Flask-WhooshAlchemy/Flask-WhooshAlchemy-0.56.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8320ba75040bd37c2810d5ab9a4bd9f3ccadebbef93c805fe0578403f8785baa CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8320ba75040bd37c2810d5ab9a4bd9f3ccadebbef93c805fe0578403f8785baa Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1141494 Buildroot used: fedora-21-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
Hi, Jared, I'm willing to sponsor Tonet, if you want, proceed to do the review and I'll take care of the sponsoring process, agreed? IIRC Flask isn't ready for py3 yet. So, tonet, try to find out if this is right or not.
Use versioned %{python2_sitelib} macro instead of %{python_sitelib}. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros
Spec URL: https://tonet666p.fedorapeople.org/python-flask-whooshalchemy.spec SRPM URL: https://tonet666p.fedorapeople.org/python-flask-whooshalchemy-0.56-2.fc20.src.rpm Hi, it's a new version, thanks for your time. Fedora Account System Username: Tonet666p
BTW there is already in Fedora: https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/python-flask-whooshee which is packaged version of: https://github.com/bkabrda/flask-whooshee While https://github.com/gyllstromk/Flask-WhooshAlchemy is different project. There is nothing bad on having two packages with same functionality in Fedora per se. But you may consider joining force.
Unofficial review: Fail: - files in %files section are not explicit enough, this resulting in marking directories as owned which are owned by other packages. Change the following lines: %files %{python2_sitelib}/* into: %{python2_sitelib}/flask_whooshalchemy.py* %{python2_sitelib}/%{mod_name}-%{version}-py2.?.egg-info and %files -n python3-flask-whooshalchemy %{python3_sitelib}/* into: %{python3_sitelib}/flask_whooshalchemy.py %{python3_sitelib}/__pycache__/flask_whooshalchemy.cpython-33.py* %{python3_sitelib}/%{mod_name}-%{version}-py3.?.egg-info - delete shipped egg.info, add following lines to %prep: # Delete upstream supplied egg-info rm -rf *.egg-info suggestion: - remove trailing whitespace at line 77 - %check is missing. I've run python setup.py test on my machine and it fails. Could you check out why? 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: "Unknown or generated". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/piotr/rpmbuild/python-flask- whooshalchemy/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.3/site- packages/__pycache__(python3-setuptools, python3-flask-whooshalchemy, python3-libs) [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. [-]: 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. [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 40960 bytes in 6 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: [-]: 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 python3 -flask-whooshalchemy [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. [!]: %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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-flask-whooshalchemy-0.56-2.fc20.noarch.rpm python3-flask-whooshalchemy-0.56-2.fc20.noarch.rpm python-flask-whooshalchemy-0.56-2.fc20.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python3-flask-whooshalchemy python-flask-whooshalchemy 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python3-flask-whooshalchemy (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-blinker python3-flask-sqlalchemy python3-sqlalchemy python3-whoosh python-flask-whooshalchemy (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-blinker python-flask-sqlalchemy python-sqlalchemy python-whoosh Provides -------- python3-flask-whooshalchemy: python3-flask-whooshalchemy python-flask-whooshalchemy: python-flask-whooshalchemy Source checksums ---------------- http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/F/Flask-WhooshAlchemy/Flask-WhooshAlchemy-0.56.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8320ba75040bd37c2810d5ab9a4bd9f3ccadebbef93c805fe0578403f8785baa CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8320ba75040bd37c2810d5ab9a4bd9f3ccadebbef93c805fe0578403f8785baa Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --rpm-spec -n SRPMS/python-flask-whooshalchemy-0.56-2.fc20.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-20-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
No response in about 2 months. Tonnet, do you still want to continue this requests? Do you still need a sponsor?
Tonet can you consider carry on with the review or desist, I'm awaiting of the result of this review to package one of my projects in Fedora. https://github.com/fedora-infra/fedora-college/blob/develop/requirements-dev.txt#L41
Hi, sorry, i'm with many work in my university, but i'll do it today taking advantage of the holidays this year
Spec URL: https://tonet666p.fedorapeople.org/python-flask-whooshalchemy.spec SRPM URL: https://tonet666p.fedorapeople.org/python-flask-whooshalchemy-0.56-3.fc21.src.rpm Hi, here is the new version with changes. But i cant run 'python setup.py test' for %check section, can anyone give me a hand?. Fedora Account System Username: Tonet666p
Sorry I was in holidays these days. I'm returning to the normal tasks :) the package uses Flask-Testing for running the test, take a look at this line of setup.py https://github.com/gyllstromk/Flask-WhooshAlchemy/blob/master/setup.py#L29
This package seems quite good to me now, here is an unofficial review: 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: "Unknown or generated". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/robyduck/1141494-python-flask- whooshalchemy/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/lib/python3.4/site- packages/Flask_WhooshAlchemy-0.56-py3.4.egg-info, /usr/lib/python2.7 /site-packages/Flask_WhooshAlchemy-0.56-py2.7.egg-info [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python2.7/site- packages/Flask_WhooshAlchemy-0.56-py2.7.egg-info, /usr/lib/python3.4 /site-packages/Flask_WhooshAlchemy-0.56-py3.4.egg-info [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. [-]: 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. [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 40960 bytes in 6 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. [ ]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3 -flask-whooshalchemy [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. [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-flask-whooshalchemy-0.56-3.fc21.noarch.rpm python3-flask-whooshalchemy-0.56-3.fc21.noarch.rpm python-flask-whooshalchemy-0.56-3.fc21.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root@localhost /]# rpmlint python3-flask-whooshalchemy python-flask-whooshalchemy 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. ]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root@localhost /]# echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python3-flask-whooshalchemy (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-blinker python3-flask-sqlalchemy python3-sqlalchemy python3-whoosh python-flask-whooshalchemy (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-blinker python-flask-sqlalchemy python-sqlalchemy python-whoosh Provides -------- python3-flask-whooshalchemy: python3-flask-whooshalchemy python-flask-whooshalchemy: python-flask-whooshalchemy Source checksums ---------------- http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/F/Flask-WhooshAlchemy/Flask-WhooshAlchemy-0.56.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8320ba75040bd37c2810d5ab9a4bd9f3ccadebbef93c805fe0578403f8785baa CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8320ba75040bd37c2810d5ab9a4bd9f3ccadebbef93c805fe0578403f8785baa Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1141494 Buildroot used: fedora-21-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
Spec URL: https://tonet666p.fedorapeople.org/python-flask-whooshalchemy.spec SRPM URL: https://tonet666p.fedorapeople.org/python-flask-whooshalchemy-0.6-1.fc21.src.rpm Hi again, i updated this package to 0.6 release, and i removed the Python 3 macros too because the package still don't have compatibility with Python 3. Thank you for your time. Fedora Account System Username: Tonet666p
Two issues: - You have to use python2-devel or python3-devel instead python-devel as BuildRequires - %{python2_sitelib}/Flask_WhooshAlchemy-%{version}-py%{python2_version}.egg-info/* should be %{python2_sitelib}/Flask_WhooshAlchemy-*.egg-info/ also don't use wildcards for list the content of a directory http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories Please fix these issues and I will sponsor you. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel ===== 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: "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/echevemaster/test-packages/1141494-python-flask- whooshalchemy/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python2.7/site- packages/Flask_WhooshAlchemy-0.6-py2.7.egg-info [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python2.7/site- packages/Flask_WhooshAlchemy-0.6-py2.7.egg-info [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. [-]: 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. [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 61440 bytes in 6 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: [-]: 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. [-]: 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. [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]: 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: python-flask-whooshalchemy-0.6-1.fc22.noarch.rpm python-flask-whooshalchemy-0.6-1.fc22.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- python-flask-whooshalchemy (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-blinker python-flask-sqlalchemy python-sqlalchemy python-whoosh Provides -------- python-flask-whooshalchemy: python-flask-whooshalchemy Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/gyllstromk/Flask-WhooshAlchemy/archive/b0207cc23bc6f7f511e710b3e47e7273a3ff4074/Flask-WhooshAlchemy-b0207cc23bc6f7f511e710b3e47e7273a3ff4074.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 68b3039284ed18f2552cf1381f013e97df4e187f99fc6b823d3e920bc1d560ad CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 68b3039284ed18f2552cf1381f013e97df4e187f99fc6b823d3e920bc1d560ad
Spec URL: https://tonet666p.fedorapeople.org/python-flask-whooshalchemy.spec SRPM URL: https://tonet666p.fedorapeople.org/python-flask-whooshalchemy-0.6-2.fc21.src.rpm Hi again, i just finished correct the issues. Tranks for your time. Fedora Account System Username: Tonet666p
flask-sqlalchemy has landed in rawhide in 2.0 version. so you have to make a conditional in your spec and change Flask-SQLAlchemy==1.0 by Flask-SQLAlchemy >= 2.0 Also you have to use BuildRequires python-sqlalchemy python-flask-sqlalchemy python-whoosh python-blinker ➜ Flask-WhooshAlchemy-b0207cc23bc6f7f511e710b3e47e7273a3ff4074 cat requirements.txt Flask==0.10.1 Flask-SQLAlchemy==1.0 Whoosh==2.6.0 blinker==1.3 Maybe %if 0%{?fedora} >= 21 sed -i -e s/Flask-SQLAlchemy==1.0/Flask-SQLAlchemy>=2.0/ %endif could work
Spec URL: https://tonet666p.fedorapeople.org/python-flask-whooshalchemy.spec SRPM URL: https://tonet666p.fedorapeople.org/python-flask-whooshalchemy-0.6-3.fc21.src.rpm Hi again, the BuildRequire lines were corrected and the conditional was added with some changes, check if i have an error please. Tranks for your time. Fedora Account System Username: Tonet666p
Spec URL: https://tonet666p.fedorapeople.org/python-flask-whooshalchemy.spec SRPM URL: https://tonet666p.fedorapeople.org/python-flask-whooshalchemy-0.6-4.fc21.src.rpm Hi again again again, i just correct my error. Tranks you for your time. Fedora Account System Username: Tonet666p
Another issue: I'm not sure if Whoosh == 2.5.7 could work fine with Flask-WhooshAlchemy, would be great if you can test it or ask to upstream. or simply ask to the maintainer (rkuska)for update the package. ➜ Flask-WhooshAlchemy-b0207cc23bc6f7f511e710b3e47e7273a3ff4074 cat requirements.txt Flask==0.10.1 Flask-SQLAlchemy==1.0 => Whoosh==2.6.0 blinker==1.3 ➜ ~ yum info python-whoosh --enablerepo=rawhide Complementos cargados:langpacks Paquetes disponibles Nombre : python-whoosh Arquitectura : noarch => Versión : 2.5.7
btw consider make a build scratch before upload your SRPM, this would help you see this issues and fix them. if still you don't know what is a scratch build. take a look at. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_the_Koji_build_system#Scratch_Builds
Spec URL: https://tonet666p.fedorapeople.org/python-flask-whooshalchemy.spec SRPM URL: https://tonet666p.fedorapeople.org/python-flask-whooshalchemy-0.6-6.fc21.src.rpm Hi, i just running the scratch build and uploading the files. The scratch build URL is this: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9022272 Thanks you for your time. Fedora Account System Username: Tonet666p
it works! package approved. please follow the instructions in here. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests if you have doubts or questions, ping me at IRC #fedora-devel or echevemaster at gmail dot com.
welcome to package collection maintainers
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-flask-whooshalchemy Short Description: Whoosh extension to Flask/SQLAlchemy Upstream URL: https://github.com/gyllstromk/Flask-WhooshAlchemy Owners: tonet666p Branches: f20 f21 f22 el6 epel7 InitialCC: tonet666p
Git done (by process-git-requests).
package is built, closing bug. You can specify the bugnumber in the update so that bugs get closed automatically when the updates are released.