Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/grizzly-test-rpms/python-subunit.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/grizzly-test-rpms/python-subunit-0.0.10-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: A streaming protocol for test result Fedora Account System Username: pbrady
tldr: licensing clarification bundled iso8601 BR python2-devel Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. ASL 2.0 was choosen for packaging, README says Apache 2.0 or BSD 3-clause, points to COPYING which is not included in the source tarball, and few source files have different license header, see below. [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries. bundles and patches iso8601 - upstream seems dead - add this patch in python-iso8601 RPM, if essential [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". * GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address) python-subunit-0.0.10/python/subunit/tests/TestUtil.py Not sure that GPL can blend into ASL 2.0, quickfix: remove all tests and this from RPM? * MIT/X11 (BSD like) python-subunit-0.0.10/python/subunit/iso8601.py This bundled lib and should be replaced with python-iso8601 dependency. * Unknown or generated python-subunit-0.0.10/setup.py Covered by README. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. * add python-iso8601 dep, after removing bundled iso8601.py [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [!]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python BR python2-devel ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [!]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. n/a if tests and TestUtil.py are removed (see license discusion above) [-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. Does any package do that? Timestamps are build time. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-subunit-0.0.10-1.fc19.src.rpm python-subunit-0.0.10-1.fc19.noarch.rpm python-subunit.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/subunit/tests/TestUtil.py python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit2gtk python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-tags python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tap2subunit python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit2junitxml python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-ls python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-filter python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit2pyunit python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-notify python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-stats 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 9 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-subunit python-subunit.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/subunit/tests/TestUtil.py python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit2gtk python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-tags python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tap2subunit python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit2junitxml python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-ls python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-filter python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit2pyunit python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-notify python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-stats 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 9 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python-subunit-0.0.10-1.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python python(abi) = 2.7 python-testtools >= 0.9.23 Provides -------- python-subunit-0.0.10-1.fc19.noarch.rpm: python-subunit = 0.0.10-1.fc19 MD5-sum check ------------- http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/python-subunit/python-subunit-0.0.10.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 40d166e1384d82d826135f924a2cc8f2e9d833acaa29616df432ec845ea87e23 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 40d166e1384d82d826135f924a2cc8f2e9d833acaa29616df432ec845ea87e23 Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Created attachment 739598 [details] Sample spec file for subunit Is there any chance you could do the full subunit package, instead of just the python part? The "check" package can use the C interface, if available. I started working on a spec file before I found this review bug; what I have so far is attached. I don't consider it final. The names of the subpackages need some thought, proper Requires (or lack thereof) between the main package and the subpackages need to be investigated, the iso8601 bundling needs to be handled somehow, etc.
I wasn't aware of the parent package TBH. It makes sense to add your spec in a new review request, and we can obsolete this separate python-subunit source package when it lands
Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/grizzly-test-rpms/python-subunit.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/grizzly-test-rpms/python-subunit-0.0.12-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: A streaming protocol for test result Fedora Account System Username: pbrady
(In reply to Pádraig Brady from comment #4) Mock build fails in %check: ImportError: No module named iso8601 ImportError: No module named testtools ImportError: No module named testtools.compat Those need to be added as BRs
Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/grizzly-test-rpms/python-subunit.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/grizzly-test-rpms/python-subunit-0.0.12-2.fc18.src.rpm Description: A streaming protocol for test result Fedora Account System Username: pbrady
Now build fails due to failing unittests (need to look into details): ... ====================================================================== FAIL: test_args (test_test_protocol.TestExecTestCase) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Traceback (most recent call last): File "/builddir/build/BUILD/python-subunit-0.0.12/python/subunit/tests/test_test_protocol.py", line 1012, in test_args self.assertEqual(1, result.testsRun) AssertionError: 1 != 0 ====================================================================== FAIL: test_run (test_test_protocol.TestExecTestCase) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Traceback (most recent call last): File "/builddir/build/BUILD/python-subunit-0.0.12/python/subunit/tests/test_test_protocol.py", line 1035, in test_run ], result._events) AssertionError: Lists differ: [('startTest', <subunit.Remote... != [] First list contains 9 additional elements. First extra element 0: ('startTest', <subunit.RemotedTestCase description='old mcdonald'>) Diff is 752 characters long. Set self.maxDiff to None to see it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ran 305 tests in 0.722s FAILED (failures=2)
subunit bundles iso8601
Created attachment 754267 [details] patch to unbundle iso8601
(In reply to Matthias Runge from comment #9) > patch to unbundle iso8601 This is already done in comment 6 version.
Please forget #c8 and #c9. It has already been addressed.
However, avoid-extras.patch bundles a piece of python-extras, which upstream doesn't do. The correct thing to do is drop that patch and watch bug 958344. Incidentally, I just need movement on that and bug 965862 and I'll have a full subunit package ready for review.
Well tests pass here in rpmbuild. Hmm what's the difference... ...whoa find -perm +111 operation has changed! Update all your scripts to -perm /111 Updated package coming...
Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/grizzly-test-rpms/python-subunit.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/grizzly-test-rpms/python-subunit-0.0.12-3.fc18.src.rpm Description: A streaming protocol for test result Fedora Account System Username: pbrady
re. python-extras - it's a silly "unlibrary" from OpenStack CI folks, as commented in bug 958344 comment 6 - there isn't anything else using it afaik.
tl;dr: License should be ASL 2.0 and GPLv2+ Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. python-extras is an "unlibrary" [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. * GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address) python-subunit-0.0.12/python/subunit/tests/TestUtil.py is GPLv2+ [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-subunit-0.0.12-3.fc19.noarch.rpm python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit2gtk python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-tags python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tap2subunit python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit2junitxml python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-2to1 python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-ls python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-filter python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit2pyunit python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-notify python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-1to2 python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-stats 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-subunit python-subunit.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/subunit/tests/TestUtil.py python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit2gtk python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-tags python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tap2subunit python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit2junitxml python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-ls python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-filter python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit2pyunit python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-notify python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-stats 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 9 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python-subunit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python python(abi) python-iso8601 python-testtools Provides -------- python-subunit: python-subunit Source checksums ---------------- http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/python-subunit/python-subunit-0.0.12.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2186662f871cbfb7957b356212e3c96f96946c41b538dc43f278df8798ed36de CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2186662f871cbfb7957b356212e3c96f96946c41b538dc43f278df8798ed36de Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 908842
That file is removed from the install RPM so ASL only is fine. I previously contacted the upstream author about it who said: "I don't think it's shipped with subunit is it? It's only a test harness thingy. Also, Python code doesn't link as such - no derivative work is created by running code, so if it is currently shipped, it's certainly not a license violation. All that said, yes, I'd be happy to have it removed/replaced."
(In reply to Pádraig Brady from comment #17) > That file is removed from the install RPM so ASL only is fine. Yeah, I thought about arguing that way myself but then realized it is still in SRPM which we do distribute, so I wasn't sure. Should we get help from fedora-legal?
There is a process to follow if you wish to bundle an external library: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries.
Well we can't tag the package as ASL and GPL as they're incompat. I would think that shipping unused GPL code in the srpm is OK, and that restriction would only apply to patented code or non kosher licences. Anyway I've sent a mail to https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal for clarification. Re python-extras. It goes against my better judgement as subunit is the only package using the extras logic and the extras logic was part of subunit a couple of versions back. But I haven't the time or energy to do the right thing here, so a new package coming up that depends on python-extras. Please make this available on f17,18,19,20,el6. We'll also need to propagate this nonsense to RDO, RHOS4.0, ...
Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/grizzly-test-rpms/python-subunit.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/grizzly-test-rpms/python-subunit-0.0.12-4.fc18.src.rpm Description: A streaming protocol for test result Fedora Account System Username: pbrady
Legal list say License: covers the RPMs only. As long as the SRPMs contain only "FOSS" stuff, that's fine.
ok, so this is now blocked until python-extras review bug 958344 is done. In the meantime licensing was clarified: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2013-May/002184.html > It is not a problem. Just make sure it isn't in the binary rpms. > You do not need to regenerate the source tarball. > The License: field reflects the contents of the binary RPM, not the > SRPM. The SRPM just needs to be 100% free, and GPLv2 meets that. So please put back License: ASL 2.0
Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/grizzly-test-rpms/python-subunit.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/grizzly-test-rpms/python-subunit-0.0.12-5.fc18.src.rpm Description: A streaming protocol for test result Fedora Account System Username: pbrady
tl;dr: APPROVED Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-subunit-0.0.12-5.fc19.noarch.rpm python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit2gtk python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-tags python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tap2subunit python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit2junitxml python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-2to1 python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-ls python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-filter python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit2pyunit python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-notify python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-1to2 python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-stats 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-subunit python-subunit.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/subunit/tests/TestUtil.py python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit2gtk python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-tags python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tap2subunit python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit2junitxml python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-ls python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-filter python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit2pyunit python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-notify python-subunit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subunit-stats 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 9 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python-subunit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python python(abi) python-extras python-iso8601 python-testtools Provides -------- python-subunit: python-subunit Source checksums ---------------- http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/python-subunit/python-subunit-0.0.12.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2186662f871cbfb7957b356212e3c96f96946c41b538dc43f278df8798ed36de CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2186662f871cbfb7957b356212e3c96f96946c41b538dc43f278df8798ed36de Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 908842
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-subunit Short Description: Python implementation of subunit test streaming protocol Owners: pbrady mrunge Branches: f18 f19 el6
Git done (by process-git-requests).
python-subunit-0.0.12-5.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-subunit-0.0.12-5.fc19
python-subunit-0.0.12-5.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-subunit-0.0.12-5.fc18
python-subunit-0.0.12-5.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-subunit-0.0.12-5.el6
python-subunit-0.0.12-5.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.
python-subunit-0.0.12-5.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
python-subunit-0.0.12-5.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
python-subunit-0.0.12-5.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: python-subunit New Branches: epel7 Owners: pbrady apevec