Spec URL: http://vmartinezdelacruz.com/rpms/python-designateclient/python-designateclient.spec SRPM URL: http://vmartinezdelacruz.com/rpms/python-designateclient/python-designateclient-1.1.1-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Client library for OpenStack Designate DNS API Fedora Account System Username: vkmc
One small typo: sed -i s/REDHATDESIGNATECLIENTVERSION/%{version}/ designateclient/version.py (patch is correct) Everything else looks good.
(In reply to Haïkel Guémar from comment #1) > One small typo: sed -i s/REDHATDESIGNATECLIENTVERSION/%{version}/ > designateclient/version.py (patch is correct) > > Everything else looks good. Oops, fixed, thanks Haïkel!
First, I just sponsored you into the Fedora Packager group, you showed good understanding of RPM packaging and Fedora guidelines. Congratulations Victoria ! As your sponsor, I'll remain available to answer your questions and/or help you with your packages, so feel free to ping me any time. Then, I reviewed python-designateclient and I hereby approved into Fedora Packages Collection since it complies with our guidelines. Please submit a SCM request to import the package. For the branches, I recommend rawhide (Kilo), F22 (Juno); F21/Juno package will be provided through RDO repositories.
Formal review report below 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/haikel/1196366-python-designateclient/licensecheck.txt [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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-designateclient-1.1.1-1.fc23.noarch.rpm python-designateclient-1.1.1-1.fc23.src.rpm python-designateclient.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C Client library and command line utility for interacting with OpenStack DNSaaS API. python-designateclient.noarch: W: no-documentation python-designateclient.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary designate python-designateclient.src: E: description-line-too-long C Client library and command line utility for interacting with OpenStack DNSaaS API. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- python-designateclient (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python2 python(abi) python-jsonschema python-keystoneclient python-requests python-six python-stevedore Provides -------- python-designateclient: python-designateclient Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/python-designateclient/python-designateclient-1.1.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1ad61a13f1bf16a27c5dad8ca5f2850d19cb33a2d67eb738fcc323f9805e06ea CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1ad61a13f1bf16a27c5dad8ca5f2850d19cb33a2d67eb738fcc323f9805e06ea Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1196366 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 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
Thanks a lot Haïkel!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-designateclient Short Description: Client library for OpenStack Designate DNS API Upstream URL: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/python-designateclient/1.1.1 Owners: vkmc Branches: f22 InitialCC:
WARNING: fedora-review flag not set WARNING: Requested package name python-designateclient doesn't match bug summary openstack-designateclient
See prior comment and correct, please.
Damnit, must have messed while switching accounts, I set the fedora-review flag to '+'. @Victoria: please redo the scm request.
@Jon Thanks for checking out, I think its fixed now. @Haikel No worries! Thanks for setting the flag. I'll redo the SCM request.
Git done (by process-git-requests).
You can drop 0001-Remove-runtime-dependency-on-python-pbr.patch and Add Requires: python-pbr, we're giving up patching that out in Fedora/RDO OpenStack packages.