Spec URL: http://rtnpro.fedorapeople.org/Packages/SPECS/tweepy.spec SRPM URL: http://rtnpro.fedorapeople.org/Packages/SRPMS/tweepy-1.7.1-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: A library for accessing the Twitter.com API. Supports OAuth, covers the entire API, and streaming API.
A few comments - There's also no need to use %{__rm} for rm command, although there is currently no guideline forbidding it. - you've removed BuildRoot section, so you can't push package to EPEL but you haven't removed %clean section (it is not required for F-13 and above http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean) - you should point setuptools in BuildRequired. Because koji build is failed. -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
Please correct License tag (I can see "MIT" in README and PKG-INFO file, but you point "Python" in License tag). Also all files contain link to LICENSE file, but there is not one in SRPM. After that I'll start Review process. -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
I updated the SPEC file for tweepy taking into account the above suggestions. I also did a mock build on my system and it completed successfully. I have uploaded the latest SPEC and SRPM files. Spec URL: http://rtnpro.fedorapeople.org/Packages/SPECS/tweepy.spec SRPM URL: http://rtnpro.fedorapeople.org/Packages/SRPMS/tweepy-1.7.1-2.fc14.src.rpm
I'll review it -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
Upstream sources has *py in its name. It's ok rpmlint output is clean. It's ok -- Please remove %clean section because F12 is currently unsupported or add BuildRoot tag if you want build package for EPEL -- Please add python2-devel if you package for Python2 only, python3-devel if you package for Python3 only. A package that has both python2 and python3 files will need to BuildRequire both. Please see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires -- Please remove python from BuildRequires because python-devel already has python in deplist -- Each source file contains point to LICENSE but there is not LICENSE file. So you SHOULD query upstream to include it.See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text for additional info -- There's also no need to use %{__rm} for rm command, although there is currently no guideline forbidding it. Please replace pointless macros or give reasons to use it. -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
(In reply to comment #5) > -- Please remove %clean section because F12 is currently unsupported or add > BuildRoot tag if you want build package for EPEL Currently, I am packaging it only for Fedora. If it is error-free, I will package it for EPEL. > -- Please add python2-devel if you package for Python2 only, python3-devel if > you package for Python3 only. A package that has both python2 and python3 files > will need to BuildRequire both. > Please see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires As far as I know, python2-devel doesn't exist in yum repository, there exists python-devel ( for python2) and python3-devel. > -- Please remove python from BuildRequires because python-devel already has > python in deplist done. > -- Each source file contains point to LICENSE but there is not LICENSE file. So > you SHOULD query upstream to include it.See > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text for > additional info There is a LICENSE file in the root of the src dir. > -- There's also no need to use %{__rm} for rm command, although there is > currently no guideline forbidding it. Do I remove the %{__rm} macro from %install section also? > Please replace pointless macros or give > reasons to use it. Please mention the pointless macros.
>> Please mention the pointless macros. you can find additional info here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=669311#c9 macros starting with "__" is pointless because they do nothing >> Do I remove the %{__rm} macro from %install section also? Yes, you do >> There is a LICENSE file in the root of the src dir. I've check twice: There's no LICENSE file in src dir of your SRPM but it is in Git repo. Currently, your package doesn't contain license text but it contain 11 points to this one grep -R LICENSE * | wc -l 11 Please contact upstream to clarify this situation (create github's issue, send mail or other). If LICENSE is MIT you can bring LICENSE file as Source1 or Patch (with bug id, mail id in comment) for example, you should add it to %doc list of %files section and I'll aprove tweepy package. >> As far as I know, python2-devel doesn't exist in yum repository, there exists python-devel ( for python2) and python3-devel. Ok.sorry. I think PythonPackaging Guidelines is out-of-date >> If it is error-free, I will package it for EPEL. You have to add BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) to your spec file. Summary: Please replace pointless macros, add BuildRoot (or remove %clean) and fix LICENSE issue for approving -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
change status -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
Made the necessary changes. Spec URL: http://rtnpro.fedorapeople.org/Packages/SPECS/tweepy.spec SRPM URL: http://rtnpro.fedorapeople.org/Packages/SRPMS/tweepy-1.7.1-3.fc14.src.rpm Koji Url: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2853546 Thanks :)
# MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1] * OK # MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines * OK # MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] . * OK # MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . * OK # MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . * OK (MIT) # MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [3] * OK # MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.[4] * OK (MIT_LICENSE from git repo) # MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5] * OK # MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6] * OK: # MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. * OK # MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [7] * OK # MUST: If the package does not successfully compile * OK # MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines * OK # MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. * N/A # MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10] * N/A # MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. * OK # MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. * N/A # MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [13] * OK # MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)[14] * OK # MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [15] * OK # MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16] * OK # MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17] * OK # MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [18] * OK # MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [18] * OK # MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19] * OK # MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [19] * NA # MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} [21] * NA # MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.[20] * OK # MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. [22] * NA # MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. * OK # MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [24] * OK ACCEPT This package is approved.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: tweepy Short Description: Twitter library for python Owners: rtnpro Branches: F-13 F-14 InitialCC: rtnpro
You should change fedora-cvs to ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Contributor -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Package tweepy-1.7.1-3.fc14: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 14 updates-testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing tweepy-1.7.1-3.fc14' as soon as you are able to, then reboot. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tweepy-1.7.1-3.fc14 then log in and leave karma (feedback).
Package tweepy-1.7.1-3.fc13: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 13 updates-testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing tweepy-1.7.1-3.fc13' as soon as you are able to, then reboot. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tweepy-1.7.1-3.fc13 then log in and leave karma (feedback).
tweepy-1.7.1-3.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 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 tweepy'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tweepy-1.7.1-3.fc13
Bug closed. -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
tweepy-1.7.1-3.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository.
tweepy-1.7.1-3.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository.
tweepy-1.8-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tweepy-1.8-1.fc16
tweepy-1.8-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
tweepy-2.0-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tweepy-2.0-1.fc18
tweepy-2.0-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tweepy-2.0-1.fc17
tweepy-2.0-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tweepy-2.0-1.fc19