Spec URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/python-email_reply_parser.spec SRPM URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/python-email_reply_parser-0.3.0-20140523git76e9481.fc21.1.src.rpm Description: Email reply parser library for Python Fedora Account System Username: williamjmorenor Test fails something, issue is reported: https://github.com/zapier/email-reply-parser/issues/17 Rawhide build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9294307 F22 build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9294321 F21 build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9294322 EPEL7 build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9294325
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable Issues: ======= - "Requires: python3" must be after you define the subpackage for Python 3. If you do not, this require applies to both the main package and the py3 subpackage, which is incorrect. - Drop the ".1" at the end of Version. It's not needed here. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Minor_release_bumps_for_old_branches - Will you branch to EPEL? In that case, you need to define the %license macro. - I'd remove the conditional for versions for Fedora older than 12. You do not need to define versioned %{__python2} macros for supported Fedoras. This is needed only if you branch to EPEL. - You can be more specific about the Python version the package is for in Summary, ie. "for Python" could be "for Python 2", but that's up to you. - Cosmetic: leave a blank line between the main package's description and the conditional for the py3 subpackage. The same for %file sections. ===== 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". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/makerpm/reviews/1054394-python-django-admin- bootstrapped/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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). [!]: 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. [!]: 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 2 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. [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 %license. [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. [-]: 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. [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: [-]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. [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. [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. -> Tests fail so they are not run for now [-]: 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-email_reply_parser-0.3.0-20140523git76e9481.fc23.1.noarch.rpm python3-email_reply_parser-0.3.0-20140523git76e9481.fc23.1.noarch.rpm python-email_reply_parser-0.3.0-20140523git76e9481.fc23.1.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint rpmlint python-email_reply_parser python3-email_reply_parser 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python-email_reply_parser (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3 python3-email_reply_parser (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python-email_reply_parser: python-email_reply_parser python3-django-admin-bootstrapped: python3-email_reply_parser Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/zapier/email-reply-parser/archive/76e9481c1a183048d0a1af0148d9f0cbd3556753/email-reply-parser-76e9481c1a183048d0a1af0148d9f0cbd3556753.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA384) this package : f6a7827529ed410c20d0ae3321522976c1c5a5f60864c3b0f719afd8dc6b457bdcc3a9f0b56663ddbd45c22d452a08bc CHECKSUM(SHA384) upstream package : f6a7827529ed410c20d0ae3321522976c1c5a5f60864c3b0f719afd8dc6b457bdcc3a9f0b56663ddbd45c22d452a08bc
I an lookiing for how to define the %license macro for Epel 6 and 7 branch, can you help me to find this to update the spec.
Look at this example on how to define %license: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/twms.git/tree/twms.spec#n41. This is needed only for EPEL < 7.
Spec URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/python-email_reply_parser.spec SRPM URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/python-email_reply_parser-0.3.0-20140523git76e9481.fc21.2.src.rpm I will keep the number in the release for: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Non-Numeric_Version_in_Release
Spec URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/python-email_reply_parser.spec SRPM URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/python-email_reply_parser-0.3.0-20140523git76e9481.fc21.src.rpm
PACKAGE APPROVED.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-email_reply_parser Short Description: Email reply parser library for Python Upstream URL: https://github.com/zapier/email-reply-parser Owners: williamjmorenor Branches: master f21 epel7 epel6 InitialCC: williamjmorenor
Git done (by process-git-requests).
python-email_reply_parser-0.3.0-20140523git76e9481.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-email_reply_parser-0.3.0-20140523git76e9481.fc21
Package python-email_reply_parser-0.3.0-20140523git76e9481.fc21: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing python-email_reply_parser-0.3.0-20140523git76e9481.fc21' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-7161/python-email_reply_parser-0.3.0-20140523git76e9481.fc21 then log in and leave karma (feedback).
*** Bug 1146179 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***