Spec URL: https://rjmco.fedorapeople.org/python-novaclient-os-networks/python-novaclient-os-networks.spec SRPM URL: https://rjmco.fedorapeople.org/python-novaclient-os-networks/python-novaclient-os-networks-0.25-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: Adds network extension support to python-novaclient Fedora Account System Username: rjmco Scratch build URLs: rawhide http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13113679 f24 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13113683 f23 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13113686 f22 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13113692 copr repo: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/rjmco/python-novaclient-os-networks/ While this is my first package, I'm already sponsored to the packagers group as co-maintainer of python-novaclient-os-virtual-interfaces package. I've let upstream know that I am maintaining a package for the Fedora Project (https://github.com/rackerlabs/os_networksv2_python_novaclient_ext/pull/12) and simultaneously asked them to include the missing LICENSE file. The package name differs from the upstream name to fall inline with the package name structure agreed between Christos Triantafyllidis, gil cattaneo, Jon Ciesla and Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1286867 for a similar add-on to python-novaclient.
Hello, I'm taking this. I'll let you as soon as I have some results. Cheers, Christos
Hello, Everything looks good! I just have a small comment, you are defining %sum but what you can do instead is to use Summary in the main package and then %summary to get the same text in the subpackage(s). Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ctrianta/FedoraReviews/1311473-python-novaclient-os- networks/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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. [-]: 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. [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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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: [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). [x]: 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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python2-novaclient-os-networks-0.25-1.fc24.noarch.rpm python-novaclient-os-networks-0.25-1.fc24.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- python2-novaclient-os-networks (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-novaclient Provides -------- python2-novaclient-os-networks: python-novaclient-os-networks python2-novaclient-os-networks Source checksums ---------------- http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/o/os_networksv2_python_novaclient_ext/os_networksv2_python_novaclient_ext-0.25.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 35ba71b027daf4c407d7a2fd94604d0437eea0c1de4d8d5d0f8ab69100834a0f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 35ba71b027daf4c407d7a2fd94604d0437eea0c1de4d8d5d0f8ab69100834a0f Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1311473 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-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
Hi Christos, Thanks for your review. As suggested, I've replaced the use of %sum with %summary throughout the spec file. Here's the diff: --- a/SPECS/python-novaclient-os-networks.spec +++ b/SPECS/python-novaclient-os-networks.spec @@ -1,11 +1,10 @@ %global srcname novaclient-os-networks %global upstreamname os_networksv2_python_novaclient_ext -%global sum Adds network extension support to python-novaclient Name: python-%{srcname} Version: 0.25 -Release: 1%{?dist} -Summary: %{sum} +Release: 2%{?dist} +Summary: Adds network extension support to python-novaclient Group: Development/Libraries License: ASL 2.0 @@ -16,15 +15,15 @@ BuildArch: noarch BuildRequires: python2-devel %description -%{sum} +%{summary} %package -n python2-%{srcname} -Summary: %{sum} +Summary: %{summary} BuildRequires: python-novaclient Requires: python-novaclient %{?python_provide:%python_provide python2-%{srcname}} %description -n python2-%{srcname} -%{sum} +%{summary} %prep %autosetup -n %{upstreamname}-%{version} @@ -44,5 +43,8 @@ Requires: python-novaclient %{python2_sitelib}/* %changelog +* Thu Mar 03 2016 Ricardo Cordeiro <gryfrev8-redhat.com-rjmco.pt> - 0.25-2 +- Replaced the use of sum with summary + * Sat Feb 20 2016 Ricardo Cordeiro <gryfrev8-redhat.com-rjmco.pt> - 0.25-1 - Initial package New scratch build URLs: rawhide http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13218893 f24 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13218904 f23 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13218916 f22 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13218920 As you've already flagged the package as passed review, I am going ahead and submit it to Package DB. Updated SRPM URL: https://rjmco.fedorapeople.org/python-novaclient-os-networks/python-novaclient-os-networks-0.25-2.fc25.src.rpm
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/python-novaclient-os-networks
python-novaclient-os-networks-0.25-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-9332b9d39b
python-novaclient-os-networks-0.25-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-869381f596
python-novaclient-os-networks-0.25-2.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-2016-869381f596
python-novaclient-os-networks-0.25-2.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-2016-9332b9d39b
python-novaclient-os-networks-0.25-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
python-novaclient-os-networks-0.25-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.