A little warning: I tried to use Windmill 1.6 and I found it not running properly.

https://github.com/windmill/windmill/issues/82

I think you should Require pyOpenSSL to allow for https.

Doesn't build in koji (F16, F17, F18):

<snip>

+ cp -r /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/trac .
cp: cannot stat `/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/trac': No such file or directory
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.wUMDjx (%check)
RPM build errors:
    Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.wUMDjx (%check)

</snip>

- the problem is in %check and adding trac to build requires should fix it

Spec URL: http://kklic.fedorapeople.org/python-windmill.spec
SRPM URL: http://kklic.fedorapeople.org/python-windmill-1.7-0.2.git4304ee7.fc16.src.rpm

* Thu Mar  8 2012 Karel Klíč <kklic> - 1.7-0.2.git4304ee7
- Added trac to build dependencies (%%check works now)

OK: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
-  W: invalid-url Source0: - it's a git snapshot, url is provided in comment
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines . - ASF 2.0
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK: 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: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK: 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. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of
those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
N/A: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
N/A: 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]
OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
N/A: 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.
OK: 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.
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example.
OK: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
N/A: 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: 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]
 - NOTE: please consider adding a subpackage -doc containing the tutorial (not
a review requirement)
N/A: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [19]
N/A: Development files must be in a -devel package. [20]
N/A: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release} [21]
OK: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built.[19]
N/A: 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]
OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the
files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for
example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the
files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that
you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns,
then please present that at package review time. [23]
OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

= SHOULD =
- man pages are missing (man windmill)
- I'm not sure about the python- prefix in the package name I always considered
the python- prefix to mark the python bindings not a pure python application
(e.g Django, deluge, bugzilla), but can't find any policy about that
- I tried to use it, but 2 out of 3 times the "Play All" failed, but that might have been just the lack of knowledge on my side..

(In reply to comment #5)
> - man pages are missing (man windmill)
> - I'm not sure about the python- prefix in the package name I always considered
> the python- prefix to mark the python bindings not a pure python application
> (e.g Django, deluge, bugzilla), but can't find any policy about that

Windmill is pretty Python-centric, as it contains interactive Python shell, the tests can be written in Python or JavaScript, and tests recorded by the GUI are stored in Python as well.

Django, which is similar to Windmill (it's a framework used by Python applications), is being renamed to python-django:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737293

http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/python-devel/2012-January/thread.html


> - I tried to use it, but 2 out of 3 times the "Play All" failed, but that might
> have been just the lack of knowledge on my side..

The timeouts of operations must be increased in the recorded sequence.

- ok, fair enough

Thank you for the review.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: python-windmill
Short Description: A web application testing framework
Owners: kklic
Branches: f16 f17 el6
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Jiri, please take ownership of review BZs.  Thanks!

python-windmill-1.7-0.2.git4304ee7.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-windmill-1.7-0.2.git4304ee7.fc17

python-windmill-1.7-0.2.git4304ee7.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-windmill-1.7-0.2.git4304ee7.el6

python-windmill-1.7-0.2.git4304ee7.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-windmill-1.7-0.2.git4304ee7.fc16

python-windmill-1.7-0.2.git4304ee7.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.

python-windmill-1.7-0.2.git4304ee7.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.

python-windmill-1.7-0.2.git4304ee7.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.

python-windmill-1.7-0.2.git4304ee7.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.