Spec URL: https://jpopelka.fedorapeople.org/python-dockerfile-parse.spec SRPM URL: https://jpopelka.fedorapeople.org/python-dockerfile-parse-0.0.3-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: Python library for Dockerfile manipulation Fedora Account System Username: jpopelka
Build fails on el6 https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9316/10249316/build.log
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". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /doomsday- root/home/ttomecek/packaging/fedora/python-dockerfile-parse/review- python-dockerfile-parse/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.4/site- packages/dockerfile_parse/__pycache__ [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.4/site- packages/dockerfile_parse/__pycache__ This is what I get after removing the package: $ tree -a /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/dockerfile_parse/ /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/dockerfile_parse/ └── __pycache__ 1 directory, 0 files [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: 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: [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3 -dockerfile-parse [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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: [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-dockerfile-parse-0.0.3-1.fc21.noarch.rpm python3-dockerfile-parse-0.0.3-1.fc21.noarch.rpm python-dockerfile-parse-0.0.3-1.fc21.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- python-dockerfile-parse (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-setuptools python3-dockerfile-parse (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-setuptools Provides -------- python-dockerfile-parse: python-dockerfile-parse python3-dockerfile-parse: python3-dockerfile-parse Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/DBuildService/dockerfile-parse/archive/2fee7d3622dc484034c6f115f08fd5e9ec78c011/dockerfile-parse-2fee7d3622dc484034c6f115f08fd5e9ec78c011.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b564463ccb2051e871cbf6fa6b2cbb583605e9f0a4e57624426fc1584760828e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b564463ccb2051e871cbf6fa6b2cbb583605e9f0a4e57624426fc1584760828e Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -n python-dockerfile-parse Buildroot used: fedora-21-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
(In reply to Tomas Tomecek from comment #1) > Build fails on el6 fixed (In reply to Tomas Tomecek from comment #2) > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.4/site- > packages/dockerfile_parse/__pycache__ fixed Spec URL: https://jpopelka.fedorapeople.org/python-dockerfile-parse.spec SRPM URL: https://jpopelka.fedorapeople.org/python-dockerfile-parse-0.0.3-2.fc22.src.rpm
Looks good to me.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-dockerfile-parse Short Description: Python library for Dockerfile manipulation Upstream URL: https://github.com/DBuildService/dockerfile-parse Owners: jpopelka ttomecek twaugh pbabinca mmilata Branches: f21 f22 el6 epel7
Git done (by process-git-requests).
python-dockerfile-parse-0.0.3-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-dockerfile-parse-0.0.3-2.fc22
python-dockerfile-parse-0.0.3-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-dockerfile-parse-0.0.3-2.el6
python-dockerfile-parse-0.0.3-2.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-dockerfile-parse-0.0.3-2.el7
python-dockerfile-parse-0.0.3-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-dockerfile-parse-0.0.3-2.fc21
python-dockerfile-parse-0.0.3-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository.
python-dockerfile-parse-0.0.3-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
python-dockerfile-parse-0.0.3-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.
python-dockerfile-parse-0.0.3-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.
python-dockerfile-parse-0.0.3-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.