Spec URL: http://mfabian.fedorapeople.org/lang-table/lang-table.spec SRPM URL: http://mfabian.fedorapeople.org/lang-table/lang-table-0.0.1-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: lang-table is used to guess reasonable defaults for locale, keyboard, territory, …, if part of that information is already known. For example, guess the territory and the keyboard layout if the language is known or guess the language and keyboard layout if the territory is already known. This is intended to be used by anaconda. Fedora Account System Username: mfabian
BuildRequires: python-lxml was missing, therefore the %check section always failed for me when building with “mock”. Jens Petersen found the reason. Fixed it like as below. Spec URL: http://mfabian.fedorapeople.org/lang-table/lang-table.spec SRPM URL: http://mfabian.fedorapeople.org/lang-table/lang-table-0.0.1-1.fc18.src.rpm updated. diff --git a/lang-table.spec b/lang-table.spec index 76f25d0..582bd73 100644 --- a/lang-table.spec +++ b/lang-table.spec @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ License: GPLv3+ URL: https://github.com/mike-fabian/lang-table Source0: http://mfabian.fedorapeople.org/lang-table/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz BuildArch: noarch +BuildRequires: python-lxml BuildRequires: python-devel %description @@ -23,6 +24,7 @@ Summary: Python module to query the lang-table-data Group: Development/Tools Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} Requires: %{name}-data = %{version}-%{release} +Requires: python-lxml %description python This package contains a Python module to query the data @@ -47,7 +49,7 @@ perl -pi -e "s%datadir = '(.*)'%datadir = '%{_datadir}/lang-table'%" langtable.p %{__python} setup.py install --skip-build --prefix=%{_prefix} --install-data=%{_datadir}/lang-table --root $RPM_BUILD_ROOT %check -#(cd $RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version}; %{__python} -m doctest test_cases.txt) +(cd $RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version}; %{__python} -m doctest test_cases.txt) %files %doc README COPYING ChangeLog unicode-license.txt test_cases.txt
+ koji scratch build -> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5346037 + rpmlint on rpms gave lang-table-python.noarch: W: no-documentation lang-table-data.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C data files for lang-table lang-table-data.noarch: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. ==> Fix summary for lang-table-data Issues: ======= 1) Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires 2) No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in lang-table-python , lang-table-data 3) No need to write for python packages now following in spec for only Fedora specific packages %{!?python_sitelib: %define python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print get_python_lib()")} 4) One more suggestion for upstream, I am confused actually with the usage of lang-table and langtable words. Can upstream use any single word everywhere? like package name is lang-table but python source file is langtable.py Shouldn't then your package name be python-langtable for your python subpackage. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28python_modules.29 5) I am a bit confused about licensing here. all *.py files have header for LGPLv3+ whereas setup.py says that module is in GPLv3+ Also, you need to specify "and MIT" in license tag and add comment about which code is in which license. I see unicode-license,txt refers to "Modern Style without sublicense (Unicode)" license whose short form is MIT
(In reply to comment #2) > + koji scratch build -> > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5346037 > > + rpmlint on rpms gave > lang-table-python.noarch: W: no-documentation > lang-table-data.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C data files for > lang-table > lang-table-data.noarch: W: no-documentation > 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. > > ==> Fix summary for lang-table-data Done. > Issues: > ======= > 1) Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires Fixed. > 2) No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in lang-table-python > , lang-table-data Not needed because the package is “noarch” and %{_isa} is needed only for architecture dependend packages. > 3) No need to write for python packages now following in spec for only > Fedora specific packages > > %{!?python_sitelib: %define python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from > distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print get_python_lib()")} Removed. > 4) One more suggestion for upstream, I am confused actually with the usage > of lang-table and langtable words. Can upstream use any single word > everywhere? > > like package name is lang-table but python source file is langtable.py Renamed everything to just “langtable”. > Shouldn't then your package name be python-langtable for your python > subpackage. > See > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_. > 28python_modules.29 Maybe langtable-python is OK as well, there are many other <something>-python packages. > 5) I am a bit confused about licensing here. all *.py files have header for > LGPLv3+ whereas setup.py says that module is in GPLv3+ > > Also, you need to specify "and MIT" in license tag and add comment about > which code is in which license. > > I see unicode-license,txt refers to "Modern Style without sublicense > (Unicode)" license whose short form is MIT Fixed and clarified in the .spec file and README. New URLs coming in the next comment ...
New Urls for comment#3: Spec URL: http://mfabian.fedorapeople.org/langtable/langtable.spec SRPM URL: http://mfabian.fedorapeople.org/langtable/langtable-0.0.1-1.fc18.src.rpm
Thank you for updating upstream as well as fedora srpm. APPROVED this package.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: langtable Short Description: For guessing reasonable defaults for locale, keyboard, territory, … Owners: mfabian Branches: f19 InitialCC: i18n-team
Requested package name langtable doesn't match bug summary lang-table, please correct.
Fixed bug summary.
Git done (by process-git-requests).
This can be closed as package is already in requested branches.
Christopher, I really think its first package submitter or reviewer's call to close this ticket. Only when both are not responding some other contributor can work on this. Sometimes package submitter have their own views of closing the ticket like waiting for another release, pushing via bodhi and then closing the review. The only reason I have not closed this myself is, we should listen to package submitter.
It is fine, I think this can be closed.