Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/pyopencl/python-appdirs.spec SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/pyopencl/python-appdirs-1.4.0-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: A small Python module for determining appropriate " + "platform-specific dirs, e.g. a "user data dir". Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain
Hi Igor. Review swap? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215354
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #1) > Hi Igor. > > Review swap? > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215354 Yes.
- Please use python2-devel instead of python-devel - This software provides tests. Why are they not performed? - Fix 'non-executable-script' errors from rpmlint - I would include CHANGES.rst file too. 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". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1219807-python- appdirs/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: 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 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]: 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 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]: Dist tag is present. [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 does not use a name that already exists. [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. [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-appdirs [ ]: 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]: 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-appdirs-1.4.0-1.fc23.noarch.rpm python3-appdirs-1.4.0-1.fc23.noarch.rpm python-appdirs-1.4.0-1.fc23.src.rpm python-appdirs.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dirs -> rids, sirs, firs python-appdirs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dirs -> rids, sirs, firs python-appdirs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dir -> deer, rid, Dir python-appdirs.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/appdirs.py 0644L /usr/bin/env python3-appdirs.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dirs -> rids, sirs, firs python3-appdirs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dirs -> rids, sirs, firs python3-appdirs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dir -> deer, rid, Dir python3-appdirs.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/appdirs.py 0644L /usr/bin/env python-appdirs.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dirs -> rids, sirs, firs python-appdirs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dirs -> rids, sirs, firs python-appdirs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dir -> deer, rid, Dir 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 9 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-appdirs.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dirs -> rids, sirs, firs python3-appdirs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dirs -> rids, sirs, firs python3-appdirs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dir -> deer, rid, Dir python3-appdirs.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/appdirs.py 0644L /usr/bin/env python-appdirs.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dirs -> rids, sirs, firs python-appdirs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dirs -> rids, sirs, firs python-appdirs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dir -> deer, rid, Dir python-appdirs.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/appdirs.py 0644L /usr/bin/env 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings. Requires -------- python3-appdirs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-appdirs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-appdirs: python3-appdirs python-appdirs: python-appdirs Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/a/appdirs/appdirs-1.4.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8fc245efb4387a4e3e0ac8ebcc704582df7d72ff6a42a53f5600bbb18fdaadc5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8fc245efb4387a4e3e0ac8ebcc704582df7d72ff6a42a53f5600bbb18fdaadc5 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.3 (bcf15e3) last change: 2015-05-04 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1219807 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, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
*** Bug 991294 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #3) > - Please use python2-devel instead of python-devel > - This software provides tests. Why are they not performed? > - Fix 'non-executable-script' errors from rpmlint > - I would include CHANGES.rst file too. Fixed. New SPEC: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/pyopencl/python-appdirs.spec New SRPM: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/pyopencl/python-appdirs-1.4.0-2.fc24.src.rpm
Hi Antonio, Can you please finish this review as it become important requirement for one of my package which need to be added in rawhide? If you are busy I can takeover the review and finish this.
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) 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. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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 4 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]: 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 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]: Dist tag is present. [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 does not use a name that already exists. [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-appdirs [ ]: 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]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-appdirs-1.4.0-2.fc23.noarch.rpm python3-appdirs-1.4.0-2.fc23.noarch.rpm python-appdirs-1.4.0-2.fc23.src.rpm python-appdirs.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dirs -> rids, sirs, firs python-appdirs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dirs -> rids, sirs, firs python-appdirs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dir -> deer, rid, Dir python3-appdirs.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dirs -> rids, sirs, firs python3-appdirs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dirs -> rids, sirs, firs python3-appdirs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dir -> deer, rid, Dir python-appdirs.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dirs -> rids, sirs, firs python-appdirs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dirs -> rids, sirs, firs python-appdirs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dir -> deer, rid, Dir 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/sagitter/1219807-python-appdirs/srpm/python-appdirs.spec 2015-07-27 17:53:58.243913562 +0200 +++ /home/sagitter/1219807-python-appdirs/srpm-unpacked/python-appdirs.spec 2015-07-27 15:53:42.000000000 +0200 @@ -5,5 +5,5 @@ Version: 1.4.0 Release: 2%{?dist} -Summary: Python module for determining platform-specific directories +Summary: Python module for determining platform-specific dirs License: MIT @@ -20,11 +20,11 @@ %if %{with python3} %package -n python3-%{modname} -Summary: Python 3 module for determining platform-specific directoriess +Summary: Python 3 module for determining platform-specific dirs BuildRequires: python3-devel python3-setuptools %description -n python3-%{modname} -A small Python 3 module for determining appropriate " + " platform-specific -directories, e.g. a "user data dir". +A small Python 3 module for determining appropriate " + "platform-specific dirs, +e.g. a "user data dir". %endif Requires -------- python3-appdirs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-appdirs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-appdirs: python3-appdirs python-appdirs: python-appdirs Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/a/appdirs/appdirs-1.4.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8fc245efb4387a4e3e0ac8ebcc704582df7d72ff6a42a53f5600bbb18fdaadc5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8fc245efb4387a4e3e0ac8ebcc704582df7d72ff6a42a53f5600bbb18fdaadc5 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1219807 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, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Fixed issue, something was wrong with fedorapeople.
Package approved.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-appdirs Short Description: Python module for determining platform-specific directories Upstream URL: http://github.com/ActiveState/appdirs Owners: ignatenkobrain paragn Branches: f22 f23
Git done (by process-git-requests).
python-appdirs-1.4.0-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-appdirs-1.4.0-2.fc22
Thank you both for helping to quickly get this package in Fedora. Now I am looking for someone to review my package request bug 1247177. Can anyone of you help by reviewing that package? Thanks.
python-appdirs-1.4.0-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository.
python-appdirs-1.4.0-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.