This package provides a Python library ly containing various Python modules to parse, manipulate or create documents in LilyPond format. A command line program ly is also provided that can be used to do various manipulations with LilyPond files. SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-ly/python-ly-0.9.1-1.fc21.src.rpm SPEC: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-ly/python-ly.spec Required for the latest version of Frescobaldi, 2.18.
Ok, some drive by comments first: 1. BuildRoot, %clean, and deffattr (in %files) shouldn't be needed unless you plan to support much older versions of Fedora or EPEL 5, correct? 2. %global upstream_name python-ly is set but never used and is the same as the package name (Is this left over from another package where upstream wasn't correct for the package naming guidelines?) 3. CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" %{__python3} setup.py build I don't think you needs the CFLAGS since it's a noarch pure python package. 4. rm -rf %{buildroot} in %install I don't think this is needed except in rare circumstances and the guidelines don't show it being used so I think it's safe to remove. 5. %doc ChangeLog README.rst doc/ The doc/ directory also includes a Makefile and config file for building the documentation so we don't want to include those but I also took a look at the RST files and it looks like the documentation needs to be generated. It's not usable as is. This would require an additional BuildRequires of sphinx and then a "make html" in the doc dir. These should probably go in a -doc subpackage but I'm open to suggestion.
1. Correct. Removed. 2. Correct. Removed. :) 3. Correct. Removed. 4. Correct. Removed. 5. Good catch. I've added the sphinx BR and left only the html, but kept it in the main package since it's not large. SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-ly/python-ly-0.9.1-2.fc21.src.rpm SPEC: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-ly/python-ly.spec
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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. [-]: 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: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/build/fedora- review/1200064-python-ly/licensecheck.txt [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [-]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [-]: 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. Note: Test run failed [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. [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]: 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: [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep [-]: 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: [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [-]: 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-ly [?]: Package functions as described. [?]: 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]: 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-ly-0.9.1-1.fc23.noarch.rpm python3-ly-0.9.1-1.fc23.noarch.rpm python-ly-0.9.1-1.fc23.src.rpm python-ly.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ly 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-ly python-ly.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ly 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # rpmlint python3-ly 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- python3-ly (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-setuptools python3-tkinter python-ly (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python2 python(abi) python-setuptools tkinter Provides -------- python3-ly: python3-ly python-ly: python-ly Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/python-ly/python-ly-0.9.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f21dd4d2566c2ef0337461384829684ae368d3534bb5f6c9e2b2891efcc3a07e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f21dd4d2566c2ef0337461384829684ae368d3534bb5f6c9e2b2891efcc3a07e Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1200064 -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 Looks good to me so, *** APPROVED ***
Excellent, thanks very much! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-ly Short Description: Tool and library for manipulating LilyPond files Upstream URL: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/python-ly Owners: limb Branches: f22 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
frescobaldi-2.18-1.fc22, python-ly-0.9.1-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/frescobaldi-2.18-1.fc22,python-ly-0.9.1-2.fc22
Package frescobaldi-2.18-1.fc22, python-ly-0.9.1-2.fc22: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing frescobaldi-2.18-1.fc22 python-ly-0.9.1-2.fc22' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-4131/frescobaldi-2.18-1.fc22,python-ly-0.9.1-2.fc22 then log in and leave karma (feedback).
frescobaldi-2.18-1.fc22, python-ly-0.9.1-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.