Spec URL: https://kushal124.fedorapeople.org/python-docx.spec SRPM URL: https://kushal124.fedorapeople.org/python-docx-0.8.2-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Python library for creating and updating Microsoft Word (.docx) files. Fedora Account System Username: kushal124 Koji : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9003516 This is my first package and I need sponsor.
Updated the spec file to fix tests. New koji build : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9009221
-Fixed the issue with tests at upstream. -Bumped to new version -Added python3 packaging SRPM : https://kushal124.fedorapeople.org/python-docx-0.8.4-1.fc20.src.rpm SPEC : https://kushal124.fedorapeople.org/python-docx.spec Koji : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9017642 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9017648
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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. Note: Cannot find LICENSE in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ===== 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. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 226 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/kushal/package-review-test/1194576-python- docx/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/licenses [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/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. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-docx [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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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-docx-0.8.4-1.fc20.noarch.rpm python3-docx-0.8.4-1.fc20.noarch.rpm python-docx-0.8.4-1.fc20.src.rpm python-docx.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.8.2-1 ['0.8.4-1.fc20', '0.8.4-1'] 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>sh-4.2# rpmlint python3-docx python-docx python-docx.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.8.2-1 ['0.8.4-1.fc20', '0.8.4-1'] 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. ]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>sh-4.2# echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python3-docx (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-docx (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-docx: python3-docx python-docx: python-docx Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/python-docx/python-docx-0.8.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f23b01704d8eaede2c0bbd88fc42597244170a6c2c81f4da30f8e330468d9beb CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f23b01704d8eaede2c0bbd88fc42597244170a6c2c81f4da30f8e330468d9beb Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1194576 -v 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
To have a good understanding of Packaging Guidelines , did these unofficial reviews : bz#1143032 and bz#1181927
%{name} is already defined Name. So %{pkg_name} can probably be removed. There's no need to use %{py3dir}. This was a kludge sometimes necessary because of 2to3 translations. But this package does not seem to use it, and Python3 uses __pycache__ and different .so names, so you can just build and install from the same source directory. This will simplify the spec file a bit. Very nice and clean packaging.
@Zbigniew: Are you performing a review here? Otherwise I'll take the package :)
I wasn't going to do a full review, since I'm not a packager sponsor. You can take it.
Taken :)
Review done :) Package looks good, but it needs some fixes: * Package latest version 0.8.5 * Fix the Changelog in spec * Remove the unnecessary macro pkg_name is mentioned by Zbigniew (not a must) * You need a sponsor Greetings, Christian Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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. Note: Cannot find LICENSE in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ***** False positive, package uses %license macro which is fine and recommended for new packages ===== 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". 245 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/review/1194576-python-docx/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. ***** Changelog misses version 0.8.4 [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). ***** As already mentioned: pkg_name macro is not neccessary [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. Note: Test run failed [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Test run failed [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Note: Test run failed [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. Python: [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep [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 ===== 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-docx [x]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. ***** Upstream released 0.8.5 some days ago, please update [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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [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-docx-0.8.4-1.fc22.noarch.rpm python3-docx-0.8.4-1.fc22.noarch.rpm python-docx-0.8.4-1.fc22.src.rpm python-docx.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.8.2-1 ['0.8.4-1.fc22', '0.8.4-1'] python-docx.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/python-docx/python-docx-0.8.4.tar.gz The read operation timed out 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. ***** Please fix the changelog Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- python3-docx (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-docx (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-docx: python3-docx python-docx: python-docx Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/python-docx/python-docx-0.8.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f23b01704d8eaede2c0bbd88fc42597244170a6c2c81f4da30f8e330468d9beb CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f23b01704d8eaede2c0bbd88fc42597244170a6c2c81f4da30f8e330468d9beb Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-22-x86_64 -b 1194576 Buildroot used: fedora-22-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
Note: I did the review using Fedora 22 as rawhide has some problems here (independent from the package) leading to a mock fail.
@Zbigniew and @Christian, thank your for the review and your kind comments. I have made the necessary changes. Please have a look :) SPEC: https://kushal124.fedorapeople.org/python-docx.spec SRPM: https://kushal124.fedorapeople.org/python-docx-0.8.5-1.fc20.src.rpm koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9185045 Thanks :)
Looks fine now :) Solution: Approved! So after finding a sponsor you can import the package :)
Thanks Christian for reviewing. Upon checking myself, I came to the same conclusion: APPROVED. Based the package itself and the other reviews you linked to, I'll sponsor you into the packagers group. Please continue the joining process from step 17: "Add Package to Source Code Management (SCM) system and Set Owner".
Hi Patrick, Thank you for the kind review and approval of the package. And also thank you for sponsoring me :) I look forward to contribute more.
Hint: set fedora-cvs flag
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-docx Short Description: Create and update Microsoft Word .docx files Upstream URL: https://github.com/python-openxml/python-docx Owners: kushal124 Branches: f20 f21 f22 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
python-docx-0.8.5-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-docx-0.8.5-1.fc22
python-docx-0.8.5-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-docx-0.8.5-1.fc20
python-docx-0.8.5-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-docx-0.8.5-1.fc21
python-docx-0.8.5-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-docx-0.8.5-2.fc22
python-docx-0.8.5-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-docx-0.8.5-2.fc21
python-docx-0.8.5-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-docx-0.8.5-2.fc20
python-docx-0.8.5-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
python-docx-0.8.5-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.
python-docx-0.8.5-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.
python-docx-0.8.5-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.