Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pcpa/python-flask-babel.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pcpa/python-flask-babel-0.8-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: Adds i18n/l10n support to Flask applications with the help of the Babel library. Fedora Account System Username: pcpa
This package is required by sagemath 5.2 beta, that I am working on in rawhide.
1. please remove this snippet CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" 2. set version checks for dependencies (setup.py may contain such informations) 3. have you considered adding a %check section ? Flask add-ons often have extensive unit tests suite and it is strongly recommand that you run them. If some fails due to the chroot environment, you may disable them or make the whole suite not fail the build (the output will remain visible in logs so it's still useful). The same goes for https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839097 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839097 As soon as the points above will be fixed, i'll run the formal review
Many thanks for the comments. Initially I had adapted the python-flask-*.spec from another existing python-flask-* in fedora. I corrected 1 and 3 above, but not sure about 2; from my understanding it should be already checking versions, but only of a few components, only versioned ones in setup.py are 'speaklater>=1.2', 'Jinja2>=2.5' Package update: Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pcpa/python-flask-babel.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pcpa/python-flask-babel-0.8-2.fc18.src.rpm
Can you please review it again now? I probably built the initial review request too fast, when putting all bits in place to get a experimental sagemath 5.2 package. But now build has been properly tested under a clean chroot, instead of only with rpmbuild. New package: Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pcpa/python-flask-babel.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pcpa/python-flask-babel-0.8-3.fc19.src.rpm
Ping? I really would like to speed up this a bit, as only the pyhton-flask* packages are now preventing to make a sagemath review request: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/SciTech/SAGE
doesn't build in mock due to missing BR: python-setuptools btw, you can ping me by mail or on irc (nick: number80)
Weird. I will try again tonight (when I "contribute" to fedora :-) to build in mock (I did confirm it was working for the last package to review). Did you use mock with a rawhide chroot? I need these packages for rawhide or newer (I was hoping to have sagemath for fedora 18, but gave up...)
I opened #857266 because it is not passing %check in current rawhide.
There was indeed an issue with python-setuptools missing. I think it may have been added to post f18 branch python-devel, but did not investigate... New package: Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pcpa/python-flask-babel.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pcpa/python-flask-babel-0.8-4.fc19.src.rpm
Since this package respects Fedora general and python specific guidelines (see formal review below), i hereby approve this package in Fedora Packages Collection. Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== Generic ==== [x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: 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 is included in %doc. [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters. [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Package is not relocatable. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [x]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [x]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [-]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0 (Flask-Babel-0.8.tar.gz) [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. Issues: Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-flask-babel-0.8-4.fc17.noarch.rpm python-flask-babel-0.8-4.fc17.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- python-flask-babel-0.8-4.fc17.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) = 2.7 python-babel python-flask python-speaklater pytz Provides -------- python-flask-babel-0.8-4.fc17.noarch.rpm: python-flask-babel = 0.8-4.fc17 MD5-sum check ------------- http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/F/Flask-Babel/Flask-Babel-0.8.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a255d77910ddfbebc6318c618d9a23cda5d018c86c7e0dea64dc860a16cb3daa CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a255d77910ddfbebc6318c618d9a23cda5d018c86c7e0dea64dc860a16cb3daa Generated by fedora-review 0.2.2 (9f8c0e5) last change: 2012-08-09 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-17-x86_64 -b 839071 External plugins:
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-flask-babel Short Description: Adds i18n/l10n support to Flask applications Owners: pcpa Branches: InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
python-flask-babel has been built in rawhide.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: python-flask-babel New Branches: f18 Owners: pcpa InitialCC: pcpa It may actually be possible to make a sagemath package update for f18, and this is one of the few missing dependencies.
python-flask-babel-0.8-4.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-flask-babel-0.8-4.fc18
python-flask-babel-0.8-4.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: python-flask-babel New Branches: el5 el6 I was asked to add it to epel, and then either maintain or add an epel comaintainer.
Misformatted request.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: python-flask-babel New Branches: el5 el6 Owners: pcpa InitialCC: pcpa I was asked to add it to epel, and then either maintain or add an epel comaintainer. Sorry for previous misformatted request. Trying again.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: python-flask-babel New Branches: epel7 Owners: pcpa jomara InitialCC: pcpa Need to add epel7 branch. Thanks!