Bug 920378 - Review Request: python-heatclient - a Python client and cli for using OpenStack Heat
Summary: Review Request: python-heatclient - a Python client and cli for using OpenSta...
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Pádraig Brady
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
Blocks: 956419
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2013-03-11 23:22 UTC by Steven Dake
Modified: 2016-04-26 16:27 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2013-03-18 16:53:16 UTC
p: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Comment 1 Pádraig Brady 2013-03-12 00:54:42 UTC
lgtm, thanks!

Package Review

[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires

===== MUST items =====

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[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.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
     Note: Macros in: python-heatclient (description), python-heatclient-doc
[-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python-
[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", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)".
     3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
[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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
     Note: Documentation size is 174080 bytes in 18 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]: 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
[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
[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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).

[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]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== SHOULD items =====

[-]: 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
[!]: %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
[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 =====

[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: Mock build failed
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Checking: python-heatclient-0.2.1-1.fc15.noarch.rpm
python-heatclient.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python-httplib2
python-heatclient.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary heat
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.

python-heatclient-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

python-heatclient (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



MD5-sum check
http://tarballs.openstack.org/python-heatclient/python-heatclient-0.2.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : a7fc91e3fbd4eef0fcb28b8ab38cb2a4d3535f57bf037ea869a1b64d7b100dd5
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a7fc91e3fbd4eef0fcb28b8ab38cb2a4d3535f57bf037ea869a1b64d7b100dd5

Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29

Comment 2 Steven Dake 2013-03-12 15:10:45 UTC
Thanks for the quick review Pádraig!

Comment 3 Steven Dake 2013-03-12 19:52:15 UTC
New Package SCM Request
Package Name: python-heatclient
Short Description: Openstack Orchestration (heat) Python Client Library
Owners: sdake, asalkeld, jpeeler, zaneb
Branches: rawhide, F19

Comment 4 Gwyn Ciesla 2013-03-12 23:13:07 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 5 Jeff Peeler 2013-03-26 21:55:00 UTC
Package Change Request
Package Name: python-heatclient
New Branches: el6
Owners: sdake, asalkeld, jpeeler, zaneb

Comment 6 Gwyn Ciesla 2013-03-27 12:39:31 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 7 Jeff Peeler 2013-03-28 19:43:28 UTC
Package Change Request
Package Name: python-heatclient
New Branches: f18
Owners: sdake, asalkeld, jpeeler, zaneb

Comment 8 Gwyn Ciesla 2013-03-28 19:53:19 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.