Spec URL: https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/python-django-formtools/python-django-formtools.spec SRPM URL: https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/python-django-formtools/python-django-formtools-1.0-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: Django's "formtools" is a set of high-level abstractions for Django forms. Currently for form previews and multi-step forms. Fedora Account System Username: jpena Koji scratch build available at https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11002924
I have uploaded an updated spec, fixing some mistakes and adding tests. SPEC: https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/python-django-formtools/python-django-formtools.spec SRPM: https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/python-django-formtools/python-django-formtools-1.0-2.fc24.src.rpm Koji scratch build available at http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11015448
Another update to handle locales properly. SPEC: https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/python-django-formtools/python-django-formtools.spec SRPM: https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/python-django-formtools/python-django-formtools-1.0-3.fc24.src.rpm Koji scratch build available at https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11019776
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 1146880 bytes in 74 files. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation Otherwise it looks good.
Thanks for the review Miroslav. I have updated the package to split docs into a subpackage. SPEC: https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/python-django-formtools/python-django-formtools.spec SRPM: https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/python-django-formtools/python-django-formtools-1.0-4.fc24.src.rpm Koji scratch build at http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11032074
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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 30 files have unknown license. [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 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. [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. [?]: 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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. APPROVED
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-django-formtools Short Description: A set of high-level abstractions for Django forms Upstream URL: http://django-formtools.readthedocs.org/en/latest/ Owners: jpena mrunge Branches: f21 f22 f23 epel7 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
python-django-formtools-1.0-4.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-15540
python-django-formtools-1.0-4.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-15541
epel7 and f21 are missing Django>=1.7
python-django-formtools-1.0-4.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-django-formtools'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-15540
python-django-formtools-1.0-4.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-django-formtools'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-15541
python-django-formtools-1.0-4.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
python-django-formtools-1.0-4.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.