Spec URL: http://markmc.fedorapeople.org/python-oslo-config.spec SRPM URL: http://markmc.fedorapeople.org/python-oslo-config-2013.1-0.1.b3.fc17.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: markmc Description: The Oslo project intends to produce a python library containing infrastructure code shared by OpenStack projects. The APIs provided by the project should be high quality, stable, consistent and generally useful. The oslo-config library is a command line and configuration file parsing library from the Oslo project.
I wonder would it make sense to have python-olso as the package, and as an installable meta-package that would depend on the python-oslo-config etc. subpackages?
For reminder, the el6 branch if created will need Requires: python-argparse Here are the flagged items from fedora-review: [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define. Note: %define sname oslo-config %define btag b3 [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Follows is the full output from fedira-review... Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [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. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python- oslo-config-doc [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/padraig/912023-python-oslo- config/licensecheck.txt [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. Note: Documentation size is 194560 bytes in 24 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: 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. [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: No rpmlint messages. Python: [-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: 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: [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define. Note: %define sname oslo-config %define btag b3 [-]: 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]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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. ===== 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-oslo-config-2013.1-0.1.b3.fc15.noarch.rpm python-oslo-config-doc-2013.1-0.1.b3.fc15.noarch.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-oslo-config-doc python-oslo-config python-oslo-config-doc.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python-oslo-config-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python-oslo-config (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-setuptools Provides -------- python-oslo-config-doc: python-oslo-config-doc python-oslo-config: python-oslo-config MD5-sum check ------------- http://tarballs.openstack.org/oslo-config/oslo-config-2013.1b3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : fde3cec5229b72f0fe45b9698a11cec127a3ff9bf630e9c3c3883f351829063c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fde3cec5229b72f0fe45b9698a11cec127a3ff9bf630e9c3c3883f351829063c Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29 Buildroot used: fedora-15-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 912023
(In reply to comment #1) > I wonder would it make sense to have python-olso as the package, and as an > installable meta-package that would depend on the python-oslo-config etc. > subpackages? Do you mean include all upstream oslo-* libraries in a single RPM ? Or add a new, separate metapackage which depends on all separately packaged oslo-* libraries If the former, the policy is basically one upstream tarball to one downstream package. If the latter, what would use/depend on this metapackage?
(In reply to comment #2) .. > Here are the flagged items from fedora-review: > > [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define. > Note: %define sname oslo-config %define btag b3 Fixed > [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Added an empty %check section
I meant the former. Fair enough if it's against policy, I thought it would be easier to add upstream components to a single oslo package (as subpackages) as they became available. Fair enough if it's against policy. +1 to package so. thanks!
Thanks Pádraig. Policy is http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Bundling_of_multiple_projects
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: oslo-config Short Description: OpenStack common configuration library Owners: markmc pbrady Branches: InitialCC:
WARNING: Requested package name oslo-config doesn't match bug summary python-oslo-config, please correct.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-oslo-config Short Description: OpenStack common configuration library Owners: markmc pbrady Branches: InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=395798
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: python-oslo-config New Branches: el6 Owners: markmc pbrady apevec