Spec URL: https://barracks510.fedorapeople.org/packaging/python-editorconfig.spec SRPM URL: https://barracks510.fedorapeople.org/packaging/python-editorconfig-0.12.0-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: EditorConfig Python Core provides the same functionality as the EditorConfig C Core. EditorConfig Python core can be used as a an importable library. Fedora Account System Username: barracks510 Koji Build Link: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12588706
A few comments: rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT: shouldn't be needed Does a simple: %py2_install %py3_install not work? You've arranged to produce scripts that use python2. On Fedora 23 and up, should it be the other way around? At the very top: # sitelib for noarch packages, sitearch for others (remove the unneeded one) please remove that comment and the sitearch macro.
Here is the new SRPM: https://barracks510.fedorapeople.org/packaging/python-editorconfig-0.12.0-2.fc23.src.rpm And SPEC: https://barracks510.fedorapeople.org/packaging/python-editorconfig.spec
barracks510's scratch build of python-editorconfig-0.12.0-2.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12685927
Are you planning to target some distro or distro version that doesn't have both python2 and python3? If not, I think you could simplify this a lot. There's a clean and simple example here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_common_spec_file It doesn't have all the bcond stuff. The current packaging guidelines suggest that you name your packages python2-editorconfig and python3-editorconfig.
Here is a new SRPM: https://barracks510.fedorapeople.org/packaging/python-editorconfig-0.12.0-3.fc23.src.rpm And SPEC: https://barracks510.fedorapeople.org/packaging/python-editorconfig.spec It removes all of the bcond stuff. I was using templates from several releases ago, and did not notice the changes to packaging guidelines.
barracks510's scratch build of python-editorconfig-0.12.0-3.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13110768
OK as long as you either fix the python2-editorconfig package to own /usr/share/doc/python-editorconfig or merge doc/python-editorconfig into doc/python2-editorconfig. The 3-clause BSD license is dumb, and it might be worth poking upstream to get rid of odict.py and use collections.OrderedDict instead. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/doc/python3-editorconfig/command_line_usage.txt See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles (I don't see why this is being printed. I think it's fine.) ===== 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: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 24 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/luto/devel/fedora /python-editorconfig/python-editorconfig/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. Fix these: [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc/python-editorconfig [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/python- editorconfig [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 40960 bytes in 10 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]: 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: I don't care about this for a trivial package like this: [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: 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 python2-editorconfig , python3-editorconfig [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: 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: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python2-editorconfig-0.12.0-3.fc21.noarch.rpm python3-editorconfig-0.12.0-3.fc21.noarch.rpm python-editorconfig-0.12.0-3.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 -------- python2-editorconfig (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-editorconfig (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python2-editorconfig: python-editorconfig python2-editorconfig python3-editorconfig: python3-editorconfig Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/editorconfig/editorconfig-core-py/archive/v0.12.0.tar.gz#/python-editorconfig-0.12.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0b8e2468305b5795c2f887f936ffc461143567792eed5c81985cbc35b13a7bc0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0b8e2468305b5795c2f887f936ffc461143567792eed5c81985cbc35b13a7bc0 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -rn python-editorconfig-0.12.0-3.fc23.src.rpm 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
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/python-editorconfig
python-editorconfig-0.12.0-3.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-6baef0f808
python-editorconfig-0.12.0-3.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-0110b2f589
python-editorconfig-0.12.0-3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-0110b2f589
python-editorconfig-0.12.0-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-6baef0f808
python-editorconfig-0.12.0-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
python-editorconfig-0.12.0-3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.