Spec URL: http://chandankumar.dgplug.org/python-oslo-cache.spec SRPM URL: http://chandankumar.dgplug.org/python-oslo-cache-0.2.0-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: oslo.cache aims to provide a generic caching mechanism for OpenStack projects by wrapping the dogpile.cache library. Fedora Account System Username: chandankumar Successful Koji Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10330103
Hi, Why do you execute the install twice l.68 and l.71 ? %{__python2} setup.py install --skip-build --root %{buildroot} I think the one in %build can be removed. Otherwise all looks good to me.
Hello Thomas, (In reply to Thomas Oulevey from comment #1) > Hi, > > Why do you execute the install twice l.68 and l.71 ? > > %{__python2} setup.py install --skip-build --root %{buildroot} > > I think the one in %build can be removed. > > Otherwise all looks good to me. Thanks for the review. Comments applied. Here is the updated SPEC FILE: https://chandankumar.fedorapeople.org/python-oslo-cache.spec SPRM: https://chandankumar.fedorapeople.org/python-oslo-cache-0.2.0-1.fc22.src.rpm Koji Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10365237 Thanks, Chandan Kumar
+1, looks good to me.
Please drop this line: %{python2_sitelib}/ Basically, your package would be owning python site-packages directory, which is not ok.
Hello, (In reply to hguemar from comment #4) > Please drop this line: > %{python2_sitelib}/ > > Basically, your package would be owning python site-packages directory, > which is not ok. Here is the updated SPEC FILE: https://chandankumar.fedorapeople.org/python-oslo-cache.spec SRPM LINK: https://chandankumar.fedorapeople.org/python-oslo-cache-0.2.0-1.fc22.src.rpm Koji Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10448028 Thanks for the review. Thanks, Chandan Kumar
A small comment about python-argparse, I suggest to drop it as it's part of python standard library. It's redundant with the automated requirement on python. But no harm in keeping it. Since this package complies with Fedora packaging guidelines, I hereby approve it. Please submit a SCM request. 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)". Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/haikel/1241808-python-oslo-cache/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. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 5 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python- oslo-cache-doc [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. [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-oslo-cache-0.2.0-1.fc23.noarch.rpm python-oslo-cache-doc-0.2.0-1.fc23.noarch.rpm python-oslo-cache-0.2.0-1.fc23.src.rpm python-oslo-cache.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dogpile -> dog pile, dog-pile, dogleg python-oslo-cache.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US memoization -> memorization, demonetization, itemization python-oslo-cache-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/python-oslo-cache-doc/html/objects.inv python-oslo-cache.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dogpile -> dog pile, dog-pile, dogleg python-oslo-cache.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US memoization -> memorization, demonetization, itemization python-oslo-cache.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backends -> back ends, back-ends, backhands 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python-oslo-cache-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/python-oslo-cache-doc/html/objects.inv 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- python-oslo-cache (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-babel python-dogpile-cache python-memcached python-oslo-config python-oslo-i18n python-oslo-log python-oslo-utils python-six python-oslo-cache-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python-oslo-cache: python-oslo-cache python-oslo-cache-doc: python-oslo-cache-doc Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/o/oslo.cache/oslo.cache-0.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 317c1a7e0f73938297d262c1c889a4d8ed1f0bdc77ec582350d20c165518799e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 317c1a7e0f73938297d262c1c889a4d8ed1f0bdc77ec582350d20c165518799e
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-olso-cache Short Description: Cache storage for Openstack projects Upstream URL: http://launchpad.net/oslo Owners: chandankumar Branches: f22 f23 InitialCC: apevec
WARNING: Requested package name python-olso-cache doesn't match bug summary python-oslo-cache
Yeah, incorrect package name in the scm request
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-oslo-cache Short Description: Cache storage for Openstack projects Upstream URL: http://launchpad.net/oslo Owners: chandankumar apevec Branches: f22 f23 InitialCC: apevec
Git done (by process-git-requests).
python-oslo-cache-0.2.0-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-oslo-cache-0.2.0-1.fc22
python-oslo-cache-0.2.0-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository.