Spec URL: https://chandankumar.fedorapeople.org/python-pykmip.spec SRPM URL: https://chandankumar.fedorapeople.org/python-PyKMIP-0.3.3-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: PyKMIP is a Python implementation of the Key Management Interoperability Protocol (KMIP). KMIP is a client/server communication protocol for the storage and maintenance of key, certificate, and secret objects. Fedora Account System Username: chandankumar Successfull Koji Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10676727
Issues to be fixed: 1) We recently changed Python guidelines for F22+ and EPEL7. Please look again https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python and change the spec file 2) Add the python3 support as well, as we have python3 default in Fedora 23. 3) Fix rpmlint warning as well. 4) SPEC name and srpm name does not match. Use all lowercase kmip. I think package name should be python-kmip based on naming guidelines policy "use the name of the module that you type to import it in a script". 5) Good to enable tests wherever possible 6) Summary should be "Python implementation of the Key Management Interoperability Protocol". Note use the same summary in bug title as well as spec file always. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. Note: python-pykmip.spec should be python-PyKMIP.spec See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name ===== 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [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 [-]: 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. [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 10240 bytes in 1 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. 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]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [!]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [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. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel ===== 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]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [-]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /home/parag/1252669-python-pykmip/srpm- unpacked/python-pykmip.spec See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-PyKMIP-0.3.3-1.fc24.noarch.rpm python-PyKMIP-0.3.3-1.fc24.src.rpm python-PyKMIP.src: E: invalid-spec-name 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- python-PyKMIP (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-enum34 python-setuptools python-six Provides -------- python-PyKMIP: python-PyKMIP Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/P/PyKMIP/PyKMIP-0.3.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 65f7895981d1bd69bb236ac2d22fd393b888c8e11ea5985c663310a5318c690a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 65f7895981d1bd69bb236ac2d22fd393b888c8e11ea5985c663310a5318c690a
Hello parag, Thanks for the review. Here is the updated SPEC: https://chandankumar.fedorapeople.org/python-pykmip.spec SRPM: https://chandankumar.fedorapeople.org/python-pykmip-0.4.0-1.fc22.src.rpm Thanks, Chandan Kumar
Change the summary in spec file to as already suggested "Python implementation of the Key Management Interoperability Protocol" otherwise looks good. APPROVED.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-pykmip Short Description: Python implementation of the Key Management Interoperability Protocol Upstream URL: https://github.com/OpenKMIP/PyKMIP Owners: chandankumar apevec Branches: f23 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
python-pykmip-0.4.0-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-732ca82ad1
python-pykmip-0.4.0-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update python-pykmip' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-732ca82ad1
python-pykmip-0.4.0-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.