Hide Forgot
Spec URL: https://mpaladin.web.cern.ch/mpaladin/rpms/amqpclt/amqpclt.spec SRPM URL: https://mpaladin.web.cern.ch/mpaladin/rpms/amqpclt/amqpclt-0.3-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: amqpclt is a versatile tool to interact with messaging brokers speaking AMQP and/or message queues (see messaging.queue) on disk. It receives messages (see messaging.message) from an incoming module, optionally massaging them (i.e. filtering and/or modifying), and sends them to an outgoing module. Depending on which modules are used, the tool can perform different operations. Fedora Account System Username: mpaladin
Hi Massimo Initial Comments [!]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros Regards
Hi again And rename the package to python-amqpclt http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/PythonNamingDependingOnImplementation
Hi Eduardo, thanks for your comments, I will make first change and be coherent with macros. About the second comment the status is: Targeted release: Fedora 19 Last updated: 2012-08-22 Percentage of completion: 00% Is that confirmed? If it will be confirmed I will rename it as even if the package doesn't deploy any python module it is implementation dependant. Regards
Hi Massimo You can just do this: %global pkgname amqpclt Name: python-amqpclt URL: http://mpaladin.web.cern.ch/mpaladin/python/amqpclt/ Source0: http://mpaladin.web.cern.ch/mpaladin/python/%{pkgname}/%{pkgname}-%{version}.tar.gz BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{pkgname}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) %setup -q -n %{pkgname}-%{version} and rename your spec python-amqpclt.spec Regards
Paste rpmlint output of srpms and rpms and tries to build scratch in Koji
Spec URL: https://mpaladin.web.cern.ch/mpaladin/rpms/python-amqpclt/python-amqpclt.spec SRPM URL: https://mpaladin.web.cern.ch/mpaladin/rpms/python-amqpclt/python-amqpclt-0.3-2.fc17.src.rpm Description: amqpclt is a versatile tool to interact with messaging brokers speaking AMQP and/or message queues (see messaging.queue) on disk. It receives messages (see messaging.message) from an incoming module, optionally massaging them (i.e. filtering and/or modifying), and sends them to an outgoing module. Depending on which modules are used, the tool can perform different operations. Fedora Account System Username: mpaladin f17 scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4519543 el6 scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4519548 rpmlint is clean. Regards
no build in el5 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4521145
If you're just going to pack for EL6 No differences with Fedora Packaging Guidelines at this time.
The scratch build for EL5 fails because in EL5 the MD5 is different and the src rpm was built with rpmbuild -bs, if builded with rpmbuild-md5 -bs it would work fine. From normal sources it would just build fine. To check look for MD5 in the mock build log: http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/1146/4521146/root.log
Ok, that's right, sorry in the process of renaming the package I said something wrong Change this BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{srcname}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) to BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#BuildRoot_tag I will formal review tonight Regards
Ops, my fault, thanks for spotting it. Updated: SPEC URL: https://mpaladin.web.cern.ch/mpaladin/rpms/python-amqpclt/python-amqpclt.spec SRPM URL: https://mpaladin.web.cern.ch/mpaladin/rpms/python-amqpclt/python-amqpclt-0.3-3.fc17.src.rpm Koji scratch builds: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4523307 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4523309 Regards
I was doing the review, and when installing the application, the executable gives me this error: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/ usr / bin / amqpclt", line 36, in <module> auth.credential import as credential ImportError: No module named auth.credential A question? You can implement a test section into the code? regards
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. [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed Yes, packaging for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: 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. [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 Yes, supporting EPEL5 [-]: 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. [!]: 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. In README File, ASL2.0 [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. [-]: 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. [!]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 Yes,Packager plans to package for EPEL5 [!]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL5 [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). [?]: 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 (amqpclt-0.3.tar.gz) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/PythonNamingDependingOnImplementation [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. [!]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. test is not present in the code [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-amqpclt-0.3-3.fc17.src.rpm python-amqpclt-0.3-3.fc17.noarch.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- python-amqpclt-0.3-3.fc17.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python perl-Config-General python-argparse python-messaging python-pika python-simplejson Provides -------- python-amqpclt-0.3-3.fc17.noarch.rpm: python-amqpclt = 0.3-3.fc17 MD5-sum check ------------- http://mpaladin.web.cern.ch/mpaladin/python/amqpclt/amqpclt-0.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8d4d49904bf96a27bdef88a68c787552e2d6543f2a721ba06330abb8ec6361fc CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8d4d49904bf96a27bdef88a68c787552e2d6543f2a721ba06330abb8ec6361fc
I added a check section where I only check the correct import of the modules. I will add with time a proper test section. Spec URL: https://mpaladin.web.cern.ch/mpaladin/rpms/python-amqpclt/python-amqpclt.spec SRPM URL: https://mpaladin.web.cern.ch/mpaladin/rpms/python-amqpclt/python-amqpclt-0.3-4.fc17.src.rpm Koji scratch builds: F17: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4523650 EL6: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4523652 Regards
I added some tests and released a new version, more tests will come in the next version. Spec URL: https://mpaladin.web.cern.ch/mpaladin/rpms/python-amqpclt/python-amqpclt.spec SRPM URL: https://mpaladin.web.cern.ch/mpaladin/rpms/python-amqpclt/python-amqpclt-0.4-1.fc17.src.rpm Koji scratch builds: rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4532207 F18: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4532209 F17: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4532211 F16: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4532213 EL6: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4532218 EL5 (with rpmbuild-md5): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4532204 Regards
rpmlint output $ ls amqpclt/ python-amqpclt-0.4-1.el5.noarch.rpm python-amqpclt-0.4-1.fc16.noarch.rpm python-amqpclt-0.4-1.fc18.noarch.rpm python-amqpclt-0.4-1.el5.src.rpm python-amqpclt-0.4-1.fc16.src.rpm python-amqpclt-0.4-1.fc18.src.rpm python-amqpclt-0.4-1.el6.noarch.rpm python-amqpclt-0.4-1.fc17.noarch.rpm python-amqpclt-0.4-1.fc19.noarch.rpm python-amqpclt-0.4-1.el6.src.rpm python-amqpclt-0.4-1.fc17.src.rpm python-amqpclt-0.4-1.fc19.src.rpm $ rpmlint amqpclt/*.rpm 12 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint python-amqpclt.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
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. [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed Yes, packaging for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: 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. [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 Yes, supporting EPEL5 [-]: 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. Licenses found: "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)" For detailed output of licensecheck see file: /home/makerpm/massimo27/856545-python-amqpclt/licensecheck.txt in the README ASL 2.0 [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. [-]: 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. [!]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 Yes, packaging plans for EPEL5 [!]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL5 Yes, supporting EPEL5 [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). [?]: 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 (amqpclt-0.4.tar.gz) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/PythonNamingDependingOnImplementation [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-amqpclt-0.4-1.fc17.noarch.rpm python-amqpclt-0.4-1.fc17.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- python-amqpclt-0.4-1.fc17.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python perl-Config-General python-argparse python-auth-credential python-dirq python-messaging python-pika Provides -------- python-amqpclt-0.4-1.fc17.noarch.rpm: python-amqpclt = 0.4-1.fc17 MD5-sum check ------------- http://mpaladin.web.cern.ch/mpaladin/python/amqpclt/amqpclt-0.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f6d0bd821714c8d9d891302b066a3e6aad9d9e9433a8298e7c292d1d9636caf1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f6d0bd821714c8d9d891302b066a3e6aad9d9e9433a8298e7c292d1d9636caf1 ---------------- PACKAGE APPROVED ----------------
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-amqpclt Short Description: Versatile AMQP client Owners: foo bar Branches: f16 f17 f18 el5 el6 InitialCC:
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-amqpclt Short Description: Versatile AMQP client Owners: mpaladin Branches: f16 f17 f18 el5 el6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
python-amqpclt-0.4-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-amqpclt-0.4-1.fc16
python-amqpclt-0.4-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-amqpclt-0.4-1.el5
python-amqpclt-0.4-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-amqpclt-0.4-1.fc17
python-amqpclt-0.4-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-amqpclt-0.4-1.fc18
python-amqpclt-0.4-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-amqpclt-0.4-1.el6
python-amqpclt-0.4-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.
Hi Massimo, Please, you could close this bug?
python-amqpclt-0.5-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-amqpclt-0.5-1.fc17
python-amqpclt-0.5-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-amqpclt-0.5-1.fc18
python-amqpclt-0.5-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-amqpclt-0.5-1.el5
python-amqpclt-0.5-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-amqpclt-0.5-1.fc19
python-amqpclt-0.5-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-amqpclt-0.5-1.el6
python-amqpclt-0.5-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Please, don't put this bug in the BZ field of the bohdi updates, this is only necessary for the first update