Spec URL: https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/python-XStatic-mdi/python-XStatic-mdi.spec SRPM URL: https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/python-XStatic-mdi/python-XStatic-mdi-1.1.70.1-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: mdi javascript library packaged for setuptools (easy_install) / pip. Fedora Account System Username: jpena Koji scratch build available at http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10953231
I have updated the spec. Now it adds another subpkg, mdi-common, with the fonts and CSS content. Both the python2 and python3 subpackages depend on it. SPEC: https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/python-XStatic-mdi/python-XStatic-mdi.spec SRPM: https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/python-XStatic-mdi/python-XStatic-mdi-1.1.70.1-1.fc24.src.rpm Koji scratch build available at http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10953734 Still unsure about the "mdi-common" subpkg name, I'm open to suggestions for a better name.
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/mrunge/review/review-python-XStatic- mdi/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/javascript/mdi [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/fonts, /usr/share/javascript/mdi [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 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 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: [!]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [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. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2 -XStatic-mdi , mdi-common , python3-XStatic-mdi [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. [-]: %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: python2-XStatic-mdi-1.1.70.1-1.fc24.noarch.rpm mdi-common-1.1.70.1-1.fc24.noarch.rpm python3-XStatic-mdi-1.1.70.1-1.fc24.noarch.rpm python-XStatic-mdi-1.1.70.1-1.fc24.src.rpm python2-XStatic-mdi.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C mdi (XStatic packaging standard) python2-XStatic-mdi.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US javascript -> java script, java-script, JavaScript python2-XStatic-mdi.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US setuptools -> setup tools, setup-tools, toadstools python2-XStatic-mdi.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal mdi-common.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C mdi (XStatic packaging standard) common files mdi-common.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-XStatic-mdi.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C mdi (XStatic packaging standard) python3-XStatic-mdi.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US javascript -> java script, java-script, JavaScript python3-XStatic-mdi.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US setuptools -> setup tools, setup-tools, toadstools python3-XStatic-mdi.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal python-XStatic-mdi.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C mdi (XStatic packaging standard) python-XStatic-mdi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US javascript -> java script, java-script, JavaScript python-XStatic-mdi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US setuptools -> setup tools, setup-tools, toadstools python-XStatic-mdi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 14 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- mdi-common.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C mdi (XStatic packaging standard) common files mdi-common.noarch: W: no-documentation python2-XStatic-mdi.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C mdi (XStatic packaging standard) python3-XStatic-mdi.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C mdi (XStatic packaging standard) 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Requires -------- mdi-common (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): web-assets-filesystem python2-XStatic-mdi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mdi-common python(abi) python-XStatic python3-XStatic-mdi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mdi-common python(abi) python3-XStatic Provides -------- mdi-common: mdi-common python2-XStatic-mdi: python-XStatic-mdi python2-XStatic-mdi python3-XStatic-mdi: python3-XStatic-mdi Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/X/XStatic-mdi/XStatic-mdi-1.1.70.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 39f177ca42baa074a13ce256a24191248c353fbf0754c0dcbf429f34ad0fd903 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 39f177ca42baa074a13ce256a24191248c353fbf0754c0dcbf429f34ad0fd903 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n python-XStatic-mdi Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Issues: - please own %{_jsdir}/mdi/ - please move fonts to a separate fonts package - /usr/share/fonts is required, please require fontpackages-filesystem
Thanks for the review Matthias. I have uploaded the fixed specs: SPEC: https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/python-XStatic-mdi/python-XStatic-mdi.spec SRPM: https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/python-XStatic-mdi/python-XStatic-mdi-1.1.70.1-2.fc24.src.rpm Koji scratch build at http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10986303
Thank you, all issues fixed, package approved!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-XStatic-mdi Short Description: mdi (XStatic packaging standard) Upstream URL: http://materialdesignicons.com Owners: jpena mrunge Branches: f21 f22 f23 epel7 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
python-XStatic-mdi-1.1.70.1-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-15421
python-XStatic-mdi-1.1.70.1-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-15422
python-XStatic-mdi-1.1.70.1-2.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-8006
python-XStatic-mdi-1.1.70.1-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.\nIf you want to test the update, you can install it with \n su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update python-XStatic-mdi'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-8006
python-XStatic-mdi-1.1.70.1-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.\nIf you want to test the update, you can install it with \n su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update python-XStatic-mdi'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-15422
python-XStatic-mdi-1.1.70.1-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.\nIf you want to test the update, you can install it with \n su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update python-XStatic-mdi'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-15421
python-XStatic-mdi-1.1.70.1-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
python-XStatic-mdi-1.1.70.1-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.