Spec URL: http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/epel-packaging/python26-nose.spec SRPM URL: http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/epel-packaging/python26-nose-0.11.1-2.el5.src.rpm Note: this is purely intended for the EPEL5 branch, not for Fedora Description: This is the python26-nose package from IUS for EL5: http://dl.iuscommunity.org/pub/ius/stable/Redhat/5/SRPMS/python26-nose-0.11.1-1.ius.el5.src.rpm reworked somewhat for import into EPEL5 Diff versus that specfile: http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/epel-packaging/python26-nose-from-0.11.1-1.ius-to-0.11.1-1.diff The rpmlint output is clean, apart from this warning (due to the dist tag): python26-nose.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.11.1-2 0.11.1-2.el5
Hi, The BR on coreutils is not needed since: $ rpm -q --requires buildsys-build | grep coreutils coreutils and also there is use of both $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot}.
Thanks! Updated specfile: http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/epel-packaging/python26-nose.spec Updated SRPM: http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/epel-packaging/python26-nose-0.11.1-3.el5.src.rpm Diff of specfile since comment #0: http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/epel-packaging/python26-nose-from-0.11.1-2-to-0.11.1-3.diff rpmlint output is as before (modulo the "release" change): python26-nose.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.11.1-3 0.11.1-3.el5 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Sorry for the delay: One trivial item but important. Review: python26-nose: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=574531 Date: 29th June 2010. Mock Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2279023 * PASS: rpmlint output $ rpmlint SPECS/python26-nose.spec \ SRPMS/python26-nose-0.11.1-3.el5.src.rpm \ RPMS/noarch/python26-nose-0.11.1-3.el5.noarch.rpm 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. i.e clean. * PASS: Named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Yes python26 versioned nose .tar bal.. * PASS: spec file name same as base package %{name}. Yes * PASS: Packaging Guidelines. Yes * PASS: Approved license in .spec file. Yes. LGPLv2 * FAIL: License on Source code. Wrong, to me it is LGPLv2+ * PASS: Include LICENSE file or similar if it exist. lgpl.txt is included. * PASS: Written in American English. * PASS: Spec file legible. * PASS: Included source must match upstream source. $ md5sum nose-0.11.1.tar.gz ../SOURCES/nose-0.11.1.tar.gz 00789d016f81ec52f666f020c644447e nose-0.11.1.tar.gz 00789d016f81ec52f666f020c644447e ../SOURCES/nose-0.11.1.tar.gz * PASS: Build on one architecture. See koji * PASS: Not building on an architecture must highlighted. See koji. * PASS: Build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. See koji. * PASS: Handle locales properly. No locales. * PASS: ldconfig must be called on shared libs. No shared libs. * PASS: No bundled copies of system libraries. None. * PASS: Package must state why relocatable if relocatable. Not relocatable. * PASS: A package must own all directories that it creates Creates /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/nose but owns it. * PASS: No duplicate files in %files listings. none. * PASS: Permissions on files must be set properly. %defattr Indeed they are. * PASS: %clean section contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). Yes. * PASS: Each package must consistently use macros. Yes. * PASS: The package must contain code, or permissable content. Indeed it does. * PASS: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. No large docs. * PASS: %doc must not affect the runtime of the application. Nope. * PASS: Header files must be in a -devel package. None. * PASS: Static libraries must be in a -static package. None. * PASS: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' None. * PASS: Then library files that end in .so None. * PASS: devel packages must require the exact base package None. * PASS: No .la libtool archives None. * PASS: GUI apps should have %{name}.desktop file None. * PASS: No files or directories already owned by other packages. No. * PASS: %install must run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). It does. * PASS: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. They are. Summary: Fail: Please see the LPGLv2 vs LGPLv2+ above.
And one last item. Upstream looks to be: http://somethingaboutorange.com/mrl/projects/nose/0.11.3/ rather that 0.11.1 Steve.
Please ignore my "fail" in comment #2. It is licensed quite correctly. So other than possible getting an upgrade this is approved. Steve.
Hi Dave, This is all reviewed and approved can we (you) proceed? Steve.
Just realised there are two of these , second one bug #606551
I'll close the other review (606551), as this one actually has some traction.
*** Bug 606551 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python26-nose Short Description: The "nose" testing package for the python26 EPEL package Owners: dmalcolm Branches: el5 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Thanks! Import done: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=python26-nose.git;a=commitdiff;h=407f389baac432eb506efb7814e114a35a95ce84 Building python26-nose-0.11.1-3.el5 for dist-5E-epel-testing-candidate Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2497504
python26-nose-0.11.1-3.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python26-nose-0.11.1-3.el5
python26-nose-0.11.1-3.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update python26-nose'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python26-nose-0.11.1-3.el5
python26-nose-0.11.1-3.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.