Spec URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/mkdocs-basic-theme.spec SRPM URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/mkdocs-basic-theme-1.0.1-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: MkDocs Basic Theme Fedora Account System Username: williamjmorenor
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - The package uses /usr/lib/python3.5 and /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages but requires python instead of python3. ===== 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". 10 files have unknown license. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages, /usr/lib/python3.5 [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.5/site- packages, /usr/lib/python3.5 [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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: 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 -> See above for issues. [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. [-]: 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. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: 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: mkdocs-basic-theme-1.0.1-1.fc24.noarch.rpm mkdocs-basic-theme-1.0.1-1.fc24.src.rpm mkdocs-basic-theme.noarch: W: no-version-in-last-changelog mkdocs-basic-theme.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No existe el fichero o el directorio mkdocs-basic-theme.noarch: W: no-version-in-last-changelog mkdocs-basic-theme.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://mkdocs.github.io/mkdocs-basic-theme/ <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- mkdocs-basic-theme (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mkdocs python(abi) Provides -------- mkdocs-basic-theme: mkdocs-basic-theme Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/m/mkdocs-basic-theme/mkdocs-basic-theme-1.0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1251182e0092a2325eee0caf6768119b97a23827318d3b65c95279e6a10a87ad CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1251182e0092a2325eee0caf6768119b97a23827318d3b65c95279e6a10a87ad
williamjmorenor's scratch build of mkdocs-basic-theme-1.0.1-1.fc24.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13099388
Looking the build info requieres python(abi) == 3.5 if not a bloquer https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9389/13099389/build.log
williamjmorenor's scratch build of mkdocs-basic-theme-1.0.1-1.fc24.src.rpm for f23 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13099491
Spec URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/mkdocs-basic-theme.spec SRPM URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/mkdocs-basic-theme-1.0.1-2.fc24.src.rpm --- Update requires
PACKAGE APPROVED
Thanks for the review.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/mkdocs-basic-theme
mkdocs-basic-theme-1.0.1-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-a123f19f11
mkdocs-basic-theme-1.0.1-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. 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-a123f19f11
mkdocs-basic-theme-1.0.1-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.