Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/python-stevedore.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/python-stevedore-0.7.2-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: Manage dynamic plugins for Python applications Fedora Account System Username: dprince
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-stevedore-0.7.2-1.fc15.noarch.rpm python-stevedore-0.7.2-1.fc15.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [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. [-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: 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. [-]: 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. [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 [-]: 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. [x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0 (stevedore-0.7.2.tar.gz) [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: 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.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-stevedore Short Description: Manage dynamic plugins for Python applications Owners: dprince pbrady Branches: f17 f18 el6 InitialCC:
You can't review your own package.
It's actually dprince's package as indicated in the "Fedora Account System Username:" field above. I just submitted it for him.
Thanks for posting this for me Pádraig. I can confirm this is my package and that it is works. This is now a requirement for upstream OpenStack Nova (Grizzly)
Readding "cvs ?" Sorry for not following process exacctly. Please indicate if you'd like to close this and start with a new bug.
dprince needs to be in the packager group first.
Dan, I notice that your email is missing from the changelog. Also stevedore-0.8 is now available. Can you post a new spec and srpm please. I'll get mrunge to sponsor you to the packager group.
Dan, I've just sponsor you into packager group. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-stevedore Short Description: Manage dynamic plugins for Python applications Owners: dprince pbrady Branches: f17 f18 el6 InitialCC: mrunge
Padraig, please assign yourself to the review
Git done (by process-git-requests).
python-stevedore-0.8 now in rawhide
python-stevedore-0.8-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-stevedore-0.8-1.fc17
python-stevedore-0.8-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-stevedore-0.8-1.fc18
python-stevedore-0.8-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-stevedore-0.8-1.el6
python-stevedore-0.8-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
python-stevedore-0.8-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
python-stevedore-0.8-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.