Spec URL: https://github.com/toromoti/rpm-python-jinja2-27/raw/master/SPECS/python-jinja2-27.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/toromoti/rpm-python-jinja2-27/raw/master/SRPMS/python-jinja2-27-2.7.2-1.el6.src.rpm Description: In EPEL6, Jinja package already exist as "python-jinja" or "python-jinja2-26". However, In the same way as EPEL7, We need 2.7 that have many functions than 2.6. Jinja2 is a template engine written in pure Python. It provides a Django inspired non-XML syntax but supports inline expressions and an optional sandboxed environment. Fedora Account System Username: toromoti
I have fixed the spec file in accordance with the guidelines. Spec URL: https://github.com/toromoti/rpm-python-jinja2-27/raw/master/SPECS/python-jinja2-27.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/toromoti/rpm-python-jinja2-27/raw/master/SRPMS/python-jinja2-27-2.7.2-1.el6.src.rpm ### Here is the result of rpmlint: $ rpmlint -i /vagrant/python-jinja2-27-2.7.2-1.el6.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. ### koji build is ok: $ koji build --scratch el6-candidate /vagrant/python-jinja2-27-2.7.2-1.el6.src.rpm Uploading srpm: /vagrant/python-jinja2-27-2.7.2-1.el6.src.rpm [====================================] 100% 00:00:00 254.16 KiB 308.07 KiB/sec Created task: 13872027 Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13872027 Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)... 13872027 build (el6-candidate, python-jinja2-27-2.7.2-1.el6.src.rpm): free 13872027 build (el6-candidate, python-jinja2-27-2.7.2-1.el6.src.rpm): free -> open (arm01-builder12.arm.fedoraproject.org) 13872029 buildArch (python-jinja2-27-2.7.2-1.el6.src.rpm, noarch): open (buildvm-25.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 13872029 buildArch (python-jinja2-27-2.7.2-1.el6.src.rpm, noarch): open (buildvm-25.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 1 open 1 done 0 failed 13872027 build (el6-candidate, python-jinja2-27-2.7.2-1.el6.src.rpm): open (arm01-builder12.arm.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 0 open 2 done 0 failed 13872027 build (el6-candidate, python-jinja2-27-2.7.2-1.el6.src.rpm) completed successfully ### result of fedora-review: This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel - 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. Note: License file LICENSE is marked as %doc instead of %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 1075200 bytes in 78 files. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (2 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 69 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/vagrant/python-jinja2-27/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages, /usr/lib/python2.6 [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python2.6, /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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 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: [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [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. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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). Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-jinja2-27-2.7.2-1.el6.noarch.rpm python-jinja2-27-2.7.2-1.el6.src.rpm python-jinja2-27.src:84: W: macro-in-%changelog %defattr python-jinja2-27.src:85: W: macro-in-%changelog %clean python-jinja2-27.src:86: W: macro-in-%changelog %{buildroot} 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- python-jinja2-27 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-babel python-markupsafe Provides -------- python-jinja2-27: python-jinja2-27 Source checksums ---------------- http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/J/Jinja2/Jinja2-2.7.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 310a35fbccac3af13ebf927297f871ac656b9da1d248b1fe6765affa71b53235 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 310a35fbccac3af13ebf927297f871ac656b9da1d248b1fe6765affa71b53235 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m epel-6-x86_64 --rpm-spec --name /vagrant/python-jinja2-27-2.7.2-1.el6.src.rpm Buildroot used: epel-6-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
Jinja2 is used by "Ansible". and Jinja-2.7 have many useful function to write Ansible Playbooks. e.g. map filter, select filter and more. Now, in EL7, Jinja2 version is 2.7, but it is 2.6 in EL6 (=> python-jinja2-26 in EPEL6). This mean that runnable playbooks on EL7 may NOT be able to run on EL6. Therefore, I thought that I want to provide Jinja-2.7 via EPEL6. If it is realized, ansible users can make runnable playbooks on both EL6 and EL7.
This ticket is left untouched. This package is unwanted?
Not necessarily. You just need to find a reviewer and a sponsor (this can be the same person, but it doesn't have to). Try asking on epel-devel mailing list or on the #epel channel on IRC (freenode).
As this updated still didn't make it into the stable repositories so far, I provided a COPR repository with a drop-in replacement of a newer Jinja2 for people to use: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/ganto/python-jinja2-26/ So far I avoided to change the package name to the '-27' suffix as this would require a change to the Ansible package too.
The files to be reviewed don't exist anymore, and the user have no files anymore on github, or elsewhere I can find.
please update this ticket if you need this package reviewed