Spec URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-bitstring/python-bitstring.spec SRPM URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-bitstring/python-bitstring-3.1.4-1.fc25.src.rpm Description: bitstring is a pure Python module designed to help make the creation and analysis of binary data as simple and natural as possible. Bitstrings can be constructed from integers (big and little endian), hex, octal, binary, strings or files. They can be sliced, joined, reversed, inserted into, overwritten, etc. with simple functions or slice notation. They can also be read from, searched and replaced, and navigated in, similar to a file or stream. Fedora Account System Username: cottsay Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13819926 rpmlint output: python-bitstring.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Bitstrings -> Bit strings, Bit-strings, Bowstrings python-bitstring.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US endian -> Indian, Dianne, Diane python2-bitstring.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Bitstrings -> Bit strings, Bit-strings, Bowstrings python2-bitstring.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US endian -> Indian, Dianne, Diane python3-bitstring.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Bitstrings -> Bit strings, Bit-strings, Bowstrings python3-bitstring.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US endian -> Indian, Dianne, Diane 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Upstream has been encouraged to add a LICENSE file [1] per Fedora packaging guidelines [2]. Thanks, --scott [1] https://github.com/scott-griffiths/bitstring/pull/161 [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Update to 3.1.5 (lastest version, contains license file) and include license file. Once this is done, I'll approve the package. ===== 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/1330833-python-bitstring/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. No license yet with package. [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 122880 bytes in 4 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]: 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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2-bitstring , python3-bitstring [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: 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. [?]: 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]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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-bitstring-3.1.4-1.fc25.noarch.rpm python3-bitstring-3.1.4-1.fc25.noarch.rpm python-bitstring-3.1.4-1.fc25.src.rpm python2-bitstring.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Bitstrings -> Bit strings, Bit-strings, Bowstrings python2-bitstring.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US endian -> Indian, Dianne, Diane python3-bitstring.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Bitstrings -> Bit strings, Bit-strings, Bowstrings python3-bitstring.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US endian -> Indian, Dianne, Diane python-bitstring.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Bitstrings -> Bit strings, Bit-strings, Bowstrings python-bitstring.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US endian -> Indian, Dianne, Diane 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python2-bitstring.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Bitstrings -> Bit strings, Bit-strings, Bowstrings python2-bitstring.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US endian -> Indian, Dianne, Diane python3-bitstring.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Bitstrings -> Bit strings, Bit-strings, Bowstrings python3-bitstring.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US endian -> Indian, Dianne, Diane 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Requires -------- python2-bitstring (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-bitstring (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python2-bitstring: python-bitstring python2-bitstring python3-bitstring: python3-bitstring Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/scott-griffiths/bitstring/archive/bitstring-3.1.4.tar.gz#/bitstring-3.1.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7af93daed9759091e0308bc53dbb48db73f115ac7fba841386b65408b1c3096f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7af93daed9759091e0308bc53dbb48db73f115ac7fba841386b65408b1c3096f Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1330833 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Any progress on this review?
Just haven't had time - I'll try to prioritize getting this one closed out.
Any updates on this?
Done and done. Spec URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-bitstring/python-bitstring.spec SRPM URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-bitstring/python-bitstring-3.1.5-1.fc27.src.rpm Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19673663 rpmlint output: python-bitstring.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Bitstrings -> Bit strings, Bit-strings, Bowstrings python-bitstring.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US endian -> Indian, Dianne, Diane python2-bitstring.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Bitstrings -> Bit strings, Bit-strings, Bowstrings python2-bitstring.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US endian -> Indian, Dianne, Diane python3-bitstring.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Bitstrings -> Bit strings, Bit-strings, Bowstrings python3-bitstring.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US endian -> Indian, Dianne, Diane 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. * Sun May 21 2017 Scott K Logan <logans> - 3.1.5-1 - Update to 3.1.5 - Include LICENSE file
Looks good. Approved!
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-bitstring
Hi, This package seems like it hasn't actually been imported and built yet. Is something blocking this? I'm not entirely sure of the right policy here, but I'd be willing to (co)maintain the package if that would be helpful.
python-bitstring-3.1.5-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-3fc948bd06
python-bitstring-3.1.5-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-f11bfea78a
I finally got around to this. Ben, if you're still interested in co-maintaining and are already a fedora packager, go ahead and request permissions.
python-bitstring-3.1.5-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 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-2017-522f9891d3
python-bitstring-3.1.5-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-2017-a6d1586e7a
python-bitstring-3.1.5-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 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-2017-3fc948bd06
python-bitstring-3.1.5-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 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-EPEL-2017-f11bfea78a
python-bitstring-3.1.5-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.