Spec URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-lightblue.spec SRPM URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-lightblue-0.1.3-1.fc27.src.rpm Description: A Python library to work with Lightblue database API. More lightblue information can be found at https://lightblue.io Fedora Account System Username: sochotni
Why the conditional for Python 3 subpackage? Where do you want to build it without that? The macros in Summary are wrong, the subpackages end up with this: $ rpm -qp --queryformat '%{Summary}\n' results/python2-lightblue-0.1.3-1.fc26.noarch.rpm %{Summary} Also rpmlint complains about this unexpanded macro. You should ask upstream to include LICENCE file in the tarball so that it can be installed. You might want to use %{srcname} in Name, but that's a detail.
(In reply to Lubomír Sedlář from comment #1) > Why the conditional for Python 3 subpackage? Where do you want to build it > without that? EPEL 7 > The macros in Summary are wrong, the subpackages end up with this: > $ rpm -qp --queryformat '%{Summary}\n' > results/python2-lightblue-0.1.3-1.fc26.noarch.rpm > %{Summary} > Also rpmlint complains about this unexpanded macro. Right, will fix > You should ask upstream to include LICENCE file in the tarball so that it > can be installed. Already done and merged: https://github.com/Allda/python-lightblue/pull/5 But won't be done until next release > You might want to use %{srcname} in Name, but that's a detail. Yeah, I should. Will fix the summary part for now
===== 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. [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. [X]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [X]: 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. [X]: 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. [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]: 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: [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. [X]: Package functions as described. [X]: Latest version is packaged. [X]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [X]: 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]: 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. Notes ----- Approved. Adding the licence in next release should be fine. If you decide to add Python 3 subpackage for EPEL (which I believe is not mandatory), have a look at python3_pkgversion macro.
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-lightblue
python-lightblue-0.1.3-2.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-63d3d03dd4
python-lightblue-0.1.3-2.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-5387dbbbe9
python-lightblue-0.1.3-2.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-a663cbce93
python-lightblue-0.1.3-2.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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-2018-63d3d03dd4
python-lightblue-0.1.3-2.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-2018-a663cbce93
python-lightblue-0.1.3-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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-2018-5387dbbbe9
python-lightblue-0.1.3-2.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
python-lightblue-0.1.3-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
python-lightblue-0.1.3-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.