Spec URL: http://medias.anotherhomepage.org/rpms/cuisine.spec SRPM URL: http://medias.anotherhomepage.org/rpms/cuisine-0.6.4-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: Cuisine is a small set of functions that sit on top of Fabric, to abstract common administration operations such as file/dir operations, user/group creation, package install/upgrade, making it easier to write portable administration and deployment scripts. Fedora Account System Username: ahpnils Hi, I just finished packaging up cuisine, and I would appreciate a review so it can be added to Fedora. It might be good to know that I am not an official Fedora Packager, I just created my accounts.
I forgot to add that this is my first package, and I am seeking a sponsor.
I'll review this.
François can you finish you review, or reassing it back to nobody so somebody else can pick it up? Nils, are you still interrested in this package?
Hi, I'm still interrested. I noticed version 0.7.10 is out, here are the updated files : Spec URL : http://medias.anotherhomepage.org/rpms/cuisine/0.7.10/cuisine.spec SRPM URL : http://medias.anotherhomepage.org/rpms/cuisine/0.7.10/cuisine-0.7.10-1.fc21.src.rpm
Before doing full review, please consider the following points (You still need a sponsor, sadly I'm not): 1) You dont need "%{__rm} -fr %{buildroot}%{python_sitelib}/paramiko" , since the tarball does not bundle paramiko 2) You need to switch to python2 macros since Fabric is python2-only (Fabric2 will support py3 but that it built on top of Invoke/Paramiko) 3) You should run the test suite in %check section 4) if you are not planning to support EL5, you could remove "%defattr(-,root,root,-)" 5) You must include a license file (using %license macro), already included in the tarball => LICENSE 6) Not a blocker: after quick look into the source code, i did not see any dnf support in package_* operations, which could make this package unusable in Fedora if yum script (dnf wrapper) is removed from base distro.
I'm facing some difficulties for 3 and 5 : the only available tarbal is from pypi, and it does not include the LICENSE file nor the tests directory. Otherwise, I should be able to address the other points, and open an issue on upstream's Github for 6.
(In reply to Nils Ratusznik from comment #6) > I'm facing some difficulties for 3 and 5 : the only available tarbal is from > pypi, and it does not include the LICENSE file nor the tests directory. just take archive from github.
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag. You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group. Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned and will be closed. Thank you for your patience.
Hi, sorry about this. I gave up on this request, as I don't use the software anymore, and it has not been updated in 2 years. You can close this request. Thanks for your help. Regards, Nils