Spec URL: https://mhabrnal.fedorapeople.org/abrt-addon-python3/abrt-addon-python3.spec SRPM URL: https://mhabrnal.fedorapeople.org/abrt-addon-python3/abrt-addon-python3-2.1.11-48.el7.src.rpm Description: Hi, there is bugzilla bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1445615 which requires abrt should catch Python34 (from epel7) exception in RHEL7. I've created package 'abrt-addon-python3' which ships tools allowing catching and analyzing Python 3 exceptions. The package is available on Fedora so this package is created basically by backporting patches from Fedora.
Note: This is targeting just EPEL-7 branch. I'm taking this.
%pre %post %preun %systemd_preun abrtd.service %postun %systemd_postun_with_restart abrtd.service %posttrans service abrtd condrestart >/dev/null 2>&1 || : This is not needed as you do not ship abrtd.service at all. This is not needed: rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT both in %install and %clean sections I am not sure if it make sense to run whole abrt test suite when you ship only python3 bindings.
You are right! I've addressed your comments and updated the spec file.
I cannot build it because of missing package: mock -r epel-7-x86_64 abrt-addon-python3-2.1.11-48.el7.src.rpm ... Error: No Package found for libreport-devel >= 2.1.11-36
libreport-devel >= 2.1.11-36 will be released in RHEL7.4. The new version doesn't affect the abrt-addon-python3 package. I've updated required libreport version. Spec file updated.
It still cannot be installed: sudo /usr/bin/yum-deprecated --installroot /var/lib/mock/epel-7-x86_64/root/ --releasever 7 install /tmp/1458243-abrt-addon-python3/results/abrt-addon-python3-2.1.11-48.el7.centos.noarch.rpm Chyba: Balíček: abrt-addon-python3-2.1.11-48.el7.centos.noarch (/abrt-addon-python3-2.1.11-48.el7.centos.noarch) Vyžaduje: abrt >= 2.1.11-48.el7.centos Instalování: abrt-2.1.11-45.el7.centos.x86_64 (base) abrt = 2.1.11-45.el7.centos Chyba: Balíček: abrt-addon-python3-2.1.11-48.el7.centos.noarch (/abrt-addon-python3-2.1.11-48.el7.centos.noarch) Vyžaduje: abrt >= 2.1.11-48.el7.centos Dostupné: abrt-2.1.11-45.el7.centos.x86_64 (base) abrt = 2.1.11-45.el7.centos Pro obejití problému můžete zkusit volbu --skip-broken Můžete zkusit spustit: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest
Spec URL: https://mhabrnal.fedorapeople.org/abrt-addon-python3/abrt-addon-python3.spec SRPM URL: https://mhabrnal.fedorapeople.org/abrt-addon-python3/abrt-addon-python3-2.1.11-49.el7.src.rpm Fixed, it's not needed to require the latest abrt version.
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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [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. [x]: 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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. Waiver: this is just to be on pair with EL5 version. All patches are in upstream already. [-]: 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. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define libreport_ver 2.1.11-35, %define satyr_ver 0.13-10, %define __scm_apply_git(qp:m:) %{__git} am --exclude tests/testsuite.at Again this is to be on pair with EL5 version to easy maintenance. [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. ===== 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. Looks good. So: APPROVED
What is you fedora account system login?
Found it.
APPROVED
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/abrt-addon-python3