Spec URL: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mhjacks/mhjacks_proposed_pkgs/build/1135625/ SRPM URL: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mhjacks/mhjacks_proposed_pkgs/build/1135625/ Description: A more friendly "git pull" utility Fedora Account mhjacks
- SPEC name and package name (and bug report name) must be the same - Fix that summary: Summary: Example python module - Since it's a binary, i'd argue you should just have a main package called: git-up - Requires are now autodetected, only keep on EPEL7 Requires: python3-six Requires: python3-colorama Requires: python3-click Requires: python3-termcolor Requires: python3-GitPython - Source is 404: Getting https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/P/PyGitUp/PyGitUp-1.6.1.tar.gz to ./PyGitUp-1.6.1.tar.gz % Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 0 curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 404 Source should be: Source0: %{pypi_source git-up} - Directory is not good either: + cd PyGitUp-1.6.1 /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.Ovv3Ou: line 39: cd: PyGitUp-1.6.1: No such file or directory error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.Ovv3Ou (%prep) - Run tests: BuildRequires: python3dist(click) BuildRequires: python3dist(colorama) BuildRequires: python3dist(gitpython) BuildRequires: python3dist(nose) BuildRequires: python3dist(six) BuildRequires: python3dist(termcolor) BuildRequires: git-core […] %check git config --global user.email "koji" git config --global user.name "Koji Build System" PYTHONPATH=%{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib} nosetests-%{python3_version} - LICENSE file is not provided by Pypi: error: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/git-up-1.6.1-1.fc32.x86_64/usr/share/licenses/git-up/LICENCE Please ask upstream to include it or use the Github archive instead, or download it as a Source1 and install it manually. %global srcname git-up Name: git-up Version: 1.6.1 Release: 1%{?dist} Summary: Example python module License: MIT URL: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/git-up Source0: %{pypi_source} Source1: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/msiemens/PyGitUp/master/LICENCE BuildArch: noarch BuildRequires: python3-devel BuildRequires: python3dist(click) BuildRequires: python3dist(colorama) BuildRequires: python3dist(gitpython) BuildRequires: python3dist(nose) BuildRequires: python3dist(six) BuildRequires: python3dist(termcolor) BuildRequires: git-core %global _description %{expand: Provides a more convenient git pull.} %description %_description %prep %autosetup -n %{srcname}-%{version} cp %{S:1} . %build %py3_build %install %py3_install %check git config --global user.email "koji" git config --global user.name "Koji Build System" PYTHONPATH=%{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib} nosetests-%{python3_version} %files %license LICENSE %doc README.rst %{python3_sitelib}/git_up-*.egg-info/ %{python3_sitelib}/PyGitUp/ %{_bindir}/git-up %changelog * Fri Dec 20 2019 Martin Jackson <mhjacks> - 1.6.1-1 - Initial release
Also you need to be sponsored to the packager group. see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
Updated in my copr per your suggestions: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mhjacks/mhjacks_proposed_pkgs/build/1135828/ Thanks for the feedback! I got the impression reading that doc that packager group access required some time and so on. Is it appropriate for me to ask to get sponsored now?
> I got the impression reading that doc that packager group access required some time and so on. Is it appropriate for me to ask to get sponsored now? You should try to do informal review requests to show that you understand the Guidelines. I'll send you one to test you. Also you should post direct links to the SPEC and SRPM when doing requests so that Fedora review can fetch them automatically: Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mhjacks/mhjacks_proposed_pkgs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01135828-git-up/git-up.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mhjacks/mhjacks_proposed_pkgs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01135828-git-up/git-up-1.6.1-1.fc32.src.rpm - Don't mix tabs and spaces: git-up.src:11: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 11) i.e.: Source1: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/msiemens/PyGitUp/master/LICENCE Package approved, please fix the aforementioned issue before you import the package in dist-git. (when you'll be approved to do so). 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: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 53 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/git-up/review-git-up/licensecheck.txt [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. [ ]: 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 20480 bytes in 1 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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. ===== 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: git-up-1.6.1-1.fc32.noarch.rpm git-up-1.6.1-1.fc32.src.rpm git-up.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary git-up git-up.src:11: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 11) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
OK, I've fixed the specfile (and also corrected some "odd permissions" issues rpmlint noted on the SRPM). specfile: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mhjacks/mhjacks_proposed_pkgs/fedora-31-x86_64/01136185-git-up/git-up.spec SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mhjacks/mhjacks_proposed_pkgs/fedora-31-x86_64/01136185-git-up/git-up-1.6.1-1.fc31.src.rpm Sorry for not posting the direct links before. As you can see there are a lot of things I have to learn about the customs here, and I appreciate you taking the time to teach me the ropes. I'll be working on the review shortly.
Sponsored.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/git-up
FEDORA-2020-96631575ce has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-96631575ce
git-up-1.6.1-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-2020-96631575ce
git-up-1.6.1-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.