Bug 757895 - Review Request: python-jinja2-26 - General purpose template engine
Summary: Review Request: python-jinja2-26 - General purpose template engine
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Matěj Cepl
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
Blocks: 757811 757816
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2011-11-28 21:55 UTC by Thomas Moschny
Modified: 2018-04-11 17:32 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version: python-jinja2-26-2.6-2.el6
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2011-12-14 20:28:07 UTC
Type: ---
mcepl: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Thomas Moschny 2011-11-28 21:55:49 UTC
Spec URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/python-jinja2-26/python-jinja2-26.spec
SRPM URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/python-jinja2-26/python-jinja2-26-2.6-1.el6.src.rpm

Jinja2 is a template engine written in pure Python.  It provides a
Django inspired non-XML syntax but supports inline expressions and an
optional sandboxed environment.

If you have any exposure to other text-based template languages, such
as Smarty or Django, you should feel right at home with Jinja2. It's
both designer and developer friendly by sticking to Python's
principles and adding functionality useful for templating

 - This is an EPEL6 only package.
 - koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3548693 .

Comment 1 Matěj Cepl 2011-11-28 22:57:37 UTC
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

+ MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review

mitmanek:task_3548765 $ rpmlint -i *.rpm|grep -v 'misspelled\|spelling-error'|grep -v '^\s*$'
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
mitmanek:task_3548765 $ 

+ MUST: package named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
+ MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
+ MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
+ MUST: The package licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines
+ MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual
Permission to use trademark on patched version of the program has been granted.
+ 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.
License is included.
+ MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
+ MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
+ MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task
MD5: 1c49a8825c993bfdcf55bb36897d28a2
+ MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture - build in koji, no problems (intended only for
0 MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
+ MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines
Build in koji (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3233947)
0 MUST: The spec file handles locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro
Locales are present (subdirectory po/). Not sure whether php53-mapi uses them
at all though. Could you please recheck this?
0 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.
Library is not in the dynamic linker's default path (%{_libdir}/php/modules/)
+ MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries
0 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. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker
+ MUST: 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
Package requires python-devel and python-setuptools which requires all
necessary directories.
+ MUST: Package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
+ MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Every %files section must
include a %defattr(...) line.
+ MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ MUST: Each package must consistently use macros
+ MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content
0 MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage
+ MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application
0 MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package
0 MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package
0 MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
0 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
0 MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
+ MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built
0 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
+ MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
+ MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
+ MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8

No problems, APPROVED!

Comment 2 Thomas Moschny 2011-11-28 23:51:13 UTC
New Package SCM Request
Package Name: python-jinja2-26
Short Description: General purpose template engine
Owners: thm
Branches: el6

This is an EPEL6 only package.

Comment 3 Gwyn Ciesla 2011-11-29 00:12:24 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 4 Fedora Update System 2011-11-29 14:43:38 UTC
python-jinja2-26-2.6-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2011-11-29 19:03:46 UTC
python-jinja2-26-2.6-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2011-12-14 20:28:07 UTC
python-jinja2-26-2.6-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.