Description: A Python utility / library to sort Python imports SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-isort/python-isort-4.2.5-1.fc24.src.rpm SPEC: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-isort/python-isort.spec
Hi - thanks for the package submission.. Here are some comments: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. [!]: 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. dustymabe: Can you change the source of the package to be linked from github so that the LICENSE file gets pulled down? And then add a %license statement to the spec file? [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)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/vagrant/1361687-python-isort/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. dustymabe: there is no license file. please use %license macro [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 [-]: 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 40960 bytes in 2 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]: 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: [-]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2-isort , python3-isort [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [-]: 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. [!]: %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-isort-4.2.5-1.fc24.noarch.rpm python3-isort-4.2.5-1.fc24.noarch.rpm python-isort-4.2.5-1.fc24.src.rpm python2-isort.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isort python2-isort.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isort2 python3-isort.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isort3 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-isort.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isort3 python2-isort.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isort python2-isort.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isort2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Requires -------- python3-isort (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python2-isort (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python2 python(abi) Provides -------- python3-isort: python3-isort python2-isort: python-isort python2-isort Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/i/isort/isort-4.2.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 56b20044f43cf6e6783fe95d054e754acca52dd43fbe9277c1bdff835537ea5c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 56b20044f43cf6e6783fe95d054e754acca52dd43fbe9277c1bdff835537ea5c Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1361687 Buildroot used: fedora-24-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
(In reply to Dusty Mabe from comment #1) > Hi - thanks for the package submission.. Here are some comments: > I should have mentioned, i'm not a sponsored packager at this point so this review won't count. I'm trying to get sponsored so this is a review for that.
We can't get things from the net at build time, but I could include a copy of the license file manually. Also, I didn't include checks because there don't seem to be any: =============================== test session starts =============================== platform linux2 -- Python 2.7.12, pytest-2.9.2, py-1.4.31, pluggy-0.3.1 rootdir: /home/limb/rpmbuild/BUILD/isort-4.2.5, inifile: collected 0 items ========================== no tests ran in 0.02 seconds =========================== I'm a sponsor, have you submitted a review?
Hello Jon! The true upstream for this project is on github, and you will find a LICENSE file there. I recommend using github as your Source0 so that you have the LICENSE file in your source, rather than copying it in manually. PyPI packages do not contain a snapshot of the source repository, but are rather made by setup.py and are usually missing a lot of repository files (like LICENSE). Another issue to fix are the names of the executables. See my note below about that. I put two other notes as well, but they are both optional and are at your discretion. If you fix the license and the executable names, you'll be good to go! Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. [!]: 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. bowlofeggs: Please add the %license macros in the %files sections. [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)", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rbarlow/reviews/1361687-python-isort/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. bowlofeggs: The %license macros will fix this. [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 40960 bytes in 2 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]: 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. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python bowlofeggs: The executable names aren't quite right. They should be named with a dash and then the Python major/minor versions. For example, the Python 2 package should make isort-2 and isort-2.7, instead of isort2. There are macros you can use to automatically set the .Y, but I can't remember what they are off the top of my head. For the policy around the names, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Naming /usr/bin/isort does correctly use Python 2. [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-isort , python3-isort [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. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. bowlofeggs: Upstream does appear to have some tests. You could run them in your spec file, but I consider that to be optional. [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 ===== bowlofeggs (optional): [!]: Consider working with upstream to create a manpage for the executable. 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-isort-4.2.5-1.fc26.noarch.rpm python3-isort-4.2.5-1.fc26.noarch.rpm python-isort-4.2.5-1.fc26.src.rpm python2-isort.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isort2 python2-isort.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isort python3-isort.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isort3 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-isort.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isort3 python2-isort.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isort python2-isort.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isort2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Requires -------- python3-isort (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python2-isort (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python2 python(abi) Provides -------- python3-isort: python3-isort python3.5dist(isort) python2-isort: python-isort python2-isort python2.7dist(isort) Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/i/isort/isort-4.2.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 56b20044f43cf6e6783fe95d054e754acca52dd43fbe9277c1bdff835537ea5c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 56b20044f43cf6e6783fe95d054e754acca52dd43fbe9277c1bdff835537ea5c Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1361687 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
Excellent, thanks! I fixed the executable names, added the tests, and switched to github. SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-isort/python-isort-4.2.5-2.fc24.src.rpm SPEC: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-isort/python-isort.spec
Hello Jon! Thanks for fixing the license. The executable names still do not follow the Fedora guidelines I cited. I'll be a little more specific. The spec file currently generates these files: $ ls rpms-unpacked/python2-isort-4.2.5-2.fc26.noarch.rpm/usr/bin/ -l total 4 lrwxrwxrwx. 1 rbarlow rbarlow 17 Aug 9 14:57 isort -> /usr/bin/isort2.7 -rwxr-xr-x. 1 rbarlow rbarlow 292 Aug 9 14:55 isort2.7 $ ls rpms-unpacked/python3-isort-4.2.5-2.fc26.noarch.rpm/usr/bin/ -l total 4 -rwxr-xr-x. 1 rbarlow rbarlow 292 Aug 9 14:55 isort3.5 According to the Python packaging guidelines, it *should* be generating these files: /usr/bin/isort -> /usr/bin/isort-2.7 /usr/bin/isort-2 -> /usr/bin/isort-2.7 /usr/bin/isort-2.7 /usr/bin/isort-3 -> /usr/bin/isort-3.5 /usr/bin/isort-3.5 In particular, this spec file is missing the dashes and the -2 and -3 symlinks.
Ah, I see, like this? SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-isort/python-isort-4.2.5-3.fc24.src.rpm SPEC: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-isort/python-isort.spec
Hello again Jon, It's closer, but the isort2 and isort3 executable names are still missing the -'s. They should be isort-2 and isort-3. Here's what the current spec builds: $ ls rpms-unpacked/python2-isort-4.2.5-3.fc26.noarch.rpm/usr/bin/ -l total 4 lrwxrwxrwx. 1 rbarlow rbarlow 18 Aug 9 16:18 isort -> /usr/bin/isort-2.7 lrwxrwxrwx. 1 rbarlow rbarlow 18 Aug 9 16:18 isort2 -> /usr/bin/isort-2.7 -rwxr-xr-x. 1 rbarlow rbarlow 292 Aug 9 16:17 isort-2.7 $ ls rpms-unpacked/python3-isort-4.2.5-3.fc26.noarch.rpm/usr/bin/ -l total 4 lrwxrwxrwx. 1 rbarlow rbarlow 18 Aug 9 16:18 isort3 -> /usr/bin/isort-3.5 -rwxr-xr-x. 1 rbarlow rbarlow 292 Aug 9 16:17 isort-3.5 All you need to do is to change isort2 to isort-2, and isort3 to isort-3. That should do the trick!
Banner day. SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-isort/python-isort-4.2.5-4.fc24.src.rpm SPEC: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-isort/python-isort.spec
Passed! I added two optional notes. One to remove executable permissions from the LICENSE files and the other to work with upstream to write a man page for the executable. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rbarlow/reviews/1361687-python-isort/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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 61440 bytes in 6 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]: 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 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]: 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 ===== bowlofeggs: [!]: The LICENSE files are getting installed with the executable bits set. 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2-isort , python3-isort [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. [-]: 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 ===== bowlofeggs: [!]: It would be good to work with upstream to write man pages for the executables. 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-isort-4.2.5-4.fc26.noarch.rpm python3-isort-4.2.5-4.fc26.noarch.rpm python-isort-4.2.5-4.fc26.src.rpm python2-isort.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/licenses/python2-isort/LICENSE python2-isort.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isort-2.7 python2-isort.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isort-2 python2-isort.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isort python3-isort.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/licenses/python3-isort/LICENSE python3-isort.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isort-3.5 python3-isort.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isort-3 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-isort.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/licenses/python3-isort/LICENSE python3-isort.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isort-3 python3-isort.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isort-3.5 python2-isort.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/licenses/python2-isort/LICENSE python2-isort.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isort-2 python2-isort.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isort python2-isort.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isort-2.7 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings. Requires -------- python3-isort (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python2-isort (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python2 python(abi) Provides -------- python3-isort: python3-isort python3.5dist(isort) python2-isort: python-isort python2-isort python2.7dist(isort) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/timothycrosley/isort/archive/4.2.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d055e9697c3d12e2f9a67691853f19b39d694a6bc533ebcd21c5e609d67c597f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d055e9697c3d12e2f9a67691853f19b39d694a6bc533ebcd21c5e609d67c597f Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1361687 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
Thank you!
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-isort
python-isort-4.2.5-4.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-7185ecb2df
python-isort-4.2.5-4.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-904927249c
python-isort-4.2.5-5.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-1ea5ba4ba9
python-isort-4.2.5-5.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-1cd9b32e27
python-isort-4.2.5-5.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-2016-1ea5ba4ba9
python-isort-4.2.5-5.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-2016-1cd9b32e27
*** Bug 1365548 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
python-isort-4.2.5-5.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
python-isort-4.2.5-5.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.