Spec URL: http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/tmp/python-behave.spec SRPM URL: http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/tmp/python-behave-1.2.3-1.el7.src.rpm Description: Behavior-driven development (or BDD) is an agile software development technique that encourages collaboration between developers, QA and non- technical or business participants in a software project. *behave* uses tests written in a natural language style, backed up by Python code. Fedora Account System Username: mcepl
changelog is not good :( Seems this module supports py3, do you know?
Behave on py3 still has numerous issues, tracking bug is https://github.com/behave/behave/issues/119
New version is http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/tmp/python-behave.spec and http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/tmp/python-behave-1.2.3-2.el7.src.rpm (of course, building of the package depends on python-parse and thus bug 987619, but I guess it shouldn't make it impossible to make a review, right?)
Christopher, do you find time over the next few days or can I also support this review? :)
I have time but please go ahead. Thanks.
taken ;)
Created attachment 814458 [details] build.log -- FTBFS on rawhide FTBFS on rawhide!!! See attached build.log :(
See comment#7
(In reply to Björn "besser82" Esser from comment #8) > See comment#7 Fixed in http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/tmp/python-behave.specpython-behave-1.2.3-3.el7.src.rpm (SPEC file http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/tmp/python-behave.spec). Built in Rawhide as http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6084675
Unfortunately you're links are invalid. :( Fixing them in this comment. ##### SRPM: http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/tmp/python-behave-1.2.3-3.el7.src.rpm SPEC: http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/tmp/python-behave.spec
===== Review report for python-behave-1.2.3-3 ===== Package has issues. :( 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 90 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/987622-python- behave/licensecheck.txt ---> License-tag is fine. :) [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 uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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). [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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [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]: 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 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. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python ---> Using `%{__python}` is deprecated by Python guidelines. Use `%{__python2}` instead, please. ---> Using `%{python_sitelib}` is deprecated by Python guidelines. Use `%{python_sitelib}` instead, please. If you need compat for <= el6, you can use this on top of spec-file: %{?!python2_sitelib:%global python2_sitelib %{python_sitelib}} [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. [-]: 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. ---> testsuite is present, but doesn't run. (uses nosetests) Add BR: python-nosetests and invoke `nosetests` during %check. [x]: 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 (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-behave-1.2.3-3.fc21.noarch.rpm python-behave-1.2.3-3.fc21.src.rpm python-behave.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) behaviour -> behavior python-behave.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) behaviour -> behavior 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-behave python-behave.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) behaviour -> behavior 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' ---> fix that spelling error, please. Requires -------- python-behave (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python python(abi) python-parse Provides -------- python-behave: python-behave Source checksums ---------------- http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/b/behave/behave-1.2.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b17529c1c49e9e3dccae9e1684f100e28dcf988cd4809d61fcf4768b80e9e329 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b17529c1c49e9e3dccae9e1684f100e28dcf988cd4809d61fcf4768b80e9e329 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 987622 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG ===== Additional comments ===== - install -p -m u=rw,go=r is hard to read IMHO. ---> install -pm 0644 is quicker to understand. - There's some quality docs to be build from tarball's doc-subdir using python-sphinx && `make html`. ---> I'd strongly recommend to build and package them inside an additional -doc sub-package. - The hashbang of the script in %{_bindir} points to `/usr/bin/python`. ---> I'd use some sed magic to change it to `%{__python2}`, so this would still be safe when system's default Python-interpreter changes to use Python3 somewhen nearby. ===== Solution ===== NOT APPROVED. Fix those issues and think over my additonal comments. I'll run another review on the updated package.
(In reply to Björn "besser82" Esser from comment #11) > [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python > > ---> Using `%{__python}` is deprecated by Python guidelines. > Use `%{__python2}` instead, please. > > ---> Using `%{python_sitelib}` is deprecated by Python guidelines. > Use `%{python_sitelib}` instead, please. If you need compat > for <= el6, you can use this on top of spec-file: > > %{?!python2_sitelib:%global python2_sitelib %{python_sitelib}} Right, done > [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. > > ---> testsuite is present, but doesn't run. (uses nosetests) > Add BR: python-nosetests and invoke `nosetests` during %check. /me wonders why there is python setup.py nosetests which does nothing, but otherwise fixed. And it is python-nose, BTW. > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > # rpmlint python-behave > python-behave.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) behaviour -> behavior > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. > # echo 'rpmlint-done:' > > ---> fix that spelling error, please. I am Czech, the upstream author is German, so we were taught proper English, not Americish, but anyway. Fixed. > - install -p -m u=rw,go=r is hard to read IMHO. > > ---> install -pm 0644 is quicker to understand. Yeah, I don't agree here. Surely, that's not a packaging error but just your opinion, right? > - There's some quality docs to be build from tarball's doc-subdir using > python-sphinx && `make html`. > > ---> I'd strongly recommend to build and package them inside an > additional -doc sub-package. make html depends on the sphinx.cheeseshop extension which has never been packaged for Fedora. > - The hashbang of the script in %{_bindir} points to `/usr/bin/python`. > > ---> I'd use some sed magic to change it to `%{__python2}`, so this > would still be safe when system's default Python-interpreter > changes to use Python3 somewhen nearby. Fixed. http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/tmp/python-behave-1.2.3-4.el7.src.rpm http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/tmp/python-behave.spec http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6086204
(In reply to Matěj Cepl from comment #12) > (In reply to Björn "besser82" Esser from comment #11) > > - There's some quality docs to be build from tarball's doc-subdir using > > python-sphinx && `make html`. > > > > ---> I'd strongly recommend to build and package them inside an > > additional -doc sub-package. > > make html depends on the sphinx.cheeseshop extension which has never been > packaged for Fedora. Now it is. ;) See rhbz#1021994 ##### Thanks for the update. I'll run another review now.
(In reply to Matěj Cepl from comment #12) > (In reply to Björn "besser82" Esser from comment #11) > > [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python > > > > ---> Using `%{__python}` is deprecated by Python guidelines. > > Use `%{__python2}` instead, please. > > > > ---> Using `%{python_sitelib}` is deprecated by Python guidelines. > > Use `%{python_sitelib}` instead, please. If you need compat > > for <= el6, you can use this on top of spec-file: > > > > %{?!python2_sitelib:%global python2_sitelib %{python_sitelib}} > > Right, done You are still using %{python_sitelib}... grep -Hn '%{python_sitelib}' python-behave.spec python-behave.spec:43:PYTHONPATH=%{buildroot}%{python_sitelib}/%{modname}*.egg-info \ python-behave.spec:64:%{python_sitelib}/* > > [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. > > > > ---> testsuite is present, but doesn't run. (uses nosetests) > > Add BR: python-nosetests and invoke `nosetests` during %check. > > /me wonders why there is python setup.py nosetests which does nothing, but > otherwise fixed. > > And it is python-nose, BTW. Sry, my bad :( Testsuite runs fine now. Ran 336 tests in 0.311s OK + exit 0 > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > > ---------------------------- > > # rpmlint python-behave > > python-behave.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) behaviour -> behavior > > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. > > # echo 'rpmlint-done:' > > > > ---> fix that spelling error, please. > > I am Czech, the upstream author is German, so we were taught proper English, > not Americish, but anyway. Fixed. So please let me co-maintain ;) I'm native German, too. So if there are problems or any, discussing them on native-lang usualy helps and is more clarifying. > > - install -p -m u=rw,go=r is hard to read IMHO. > > > > ---> install -pm 0644 is quicker to understand. > > Yeah, I don't agree here. Surely, that's not a packaging error but just your > opinion, right? Yes, personal oppinion (and possibly the one with majority amoung other packagers). You are free to use whatever you prefer. > > - There's some quality docs to be build from tarball's doc-subdir using > > python-sphinx && `make html`. > > > > ---> I'd strongly recommend to build and package them inside an > > additional -doc sub-package. > > make html depends on the sphinx.cheeseshop extension which has never been > packaged for Fedora. You can safely add `BR: python-sphinxcontrib-cheeseshop` now. ;) I have build && tagged overrides for el5+ && fc18+ > > - The hashbang of the script in %{_bindir} points to `/usr/bin/python`. > > > > ---> I'd use some sed magic to change it to `%{__python2}`, so this > > would still be safe when system's default Python-interpreter > > changes to use Python3 somewhen nearby. > > Fixed. Looks better now. ===== Solution ===== NOT APPROVED -- Fix that `%{python_sitelib}` --> `%{python2_sitelib}` thing and autodocs to the package and I'll approve then.
(In reply to Björn "besser82" Esser from comment #14) > (In reply to Matěj Cepl from comment #12) > > (In reply to Björn "besser82" Esser from comment #11) > > > [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python > > > > > > ---> Using `%{__python}` is deprecated by Python guidelines. > > > Use `%{__python2}` instead, please. > > > > > > ---> Using `%{python_sitelib}` is deprecated by Python guidelines. > > > Use `%{python_sitelib}` instead, please. If you need compat > > > for <= el6, you can use this on top of spec-file: > > > > > > %{?!python2_sitelib:%global python2_sitelib %{python_sitelib}} > > > > Right, done > > You are still using %{python_sitelib}... > > grep -Hn '%{python_sitelib}' python-behave.spec > > python-behave.spec:43:PYTHONPATH=%{buildroot}%{python_sitelib}/%{modname}*. > egg-info \ > python-behave.spec:64:%{python_sitelib}/* > > > > > [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. > > > > > > ---> testsuite is present, but doesn't run. (uses nosetests) > > > Add BR: python-nosetests and invoke `nosetests` during %check. > > > > /me wonders why there is python setup.py nosetests which does nothing, but > > otherwise fixed. > > > > And it is python-nose, BTW. > > Sry, my bad :( Testsuite runs fine now. > > Ran 336 tests in 0.311s > OK > + exit 0 > > > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > > > ---------------------------- > > > # rpmlint python-behave > > > python-behave.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) behaviour -> behavior > > > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. > > > # echo 'rpmlint-done:' > > > > > > ---> fix that spelling error, please. > > > > I am Czech, the upstream author is German, so we were taught proper English, > > not Americish, but anyway. Fixed. > > So please let me co-maintain ;) I'm native German, too. So if there are > problems or any, discussing them on native-lang usualy helps and is more > clarifying. > > > > > - install -p -m u=rw,go=r is hard to read IMHO. > > > > > > ---> install -pm 0644 is quicker to understand. > > > > Yeah, I don't agree here. Surely, that's not a packaging error but just your > > opinion, right? > > Yes, personal oppinion (and possibly the one with majority amoung other > packagers). You are free to use whatever you prefer. > > > > > - There's some quality docs to be build from tarball's doc-subdir using > > > python-sphinx && `make html`. > > > > > > ---> I'd strongly recommend to build and package them inside an > > > additional -doc sub-package. > > > > make html depends on the sphinx.cheeseshop extension which has never been > > packaged for Fedora. > > You can safely add `BR: python-sphinxcontrib-cheeseshop` now. ;) I have > build && tagged overrides for el5+ && fc18+ > > > > > - The hashbang of the script in %{_bindir} points to `/usr/bin/python`. > > > > > > ---> I'd use some sed magic to change it to `%{__python2}`, so this > > > would still be safe when system's default Python-interpreter > > > changes to use Python3 somewhen nearby. > > > > Fixed. > > Looks better now. > > > ===== Solution ===== > > NOT APPROVED -- Fix that `%{python_sitelib}` --> `%{python2_sitelib}` thing > and autodocs to the package and I'll approve then. http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/tmp/python-behave-1.2.3-5.el7.src.rpm http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/tmp/python-behave.spec
Created attachment 815262 [details] fixed spec && build for el6 ===== Review report for python-behave-1.2.3-5 ===== This report was created with a local copy of python-sphinxcontrib-cheeseshop-0.2-1.fc21.noarch.rpm Koji-build URL: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=472980 Package unfortunately now has some new issues. :( 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 90 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/987622-python- behave/licensecheck.txt ---> License-tag is fine. :) [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. ---> -doc sub-package lacks `%doc README.rst LICENSE`. Packaging duplicate files is allowed and ecouraged by guidelines in this case. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed ---> remove that from -doc sub-package, please. It's not needed. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. ---> -doc sub-package should not requires main-package, because one usually wants to install documentation independently from `binaries`. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [!]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 788480 bytes in 18 files. ---> Why did you include pickled sphinx-environment as %doc in main-package? Binary-pickles are not really useful. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines ---> issues are present. [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). [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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [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]: 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 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. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). ---> -doc sub-package should not requires main-package, because one usually wants to install documentation independently from `binaries`. As written above, too. [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [x]: 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 (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-behave-1.2.3-5.fc21.noarch.rpm python-behave-doc-1.2.3-5.fc21.noarch.rpm python-behave-1.2.3-5.fc21.src.rpm python-behave-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reST -> rest, re ST, re-ST 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. ---> False positives. You can ignore them. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-behave-doc python-behave python-behave-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reST -> rest, re ST, re-ST 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' ---> False positives. You can ignore them. Requires -------- python-behave-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python-behave python-behave (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python2 python(abi) python-parse Provides -------- python-behave-doc: python-behave-doc python-behave: python-behave Source checksums ---------------- http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/b/behave/behave-1.2.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b17529c1c49e9e3dccae9e1684f100e28dcf988cd4809d61fcf4768b80e9e329 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b17529c1c49e9e3dccae9e1684f100e28dcf988cd4809d61fcf4768b80e9e329 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -L /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/python-sphinxcontrib-cheeseshop/ -b 987622 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG Built with local dependencies: /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/python-sphinxcontrib-cheeseshop/python-sphinxcontrib-cheeseshop-0.2-1.fc21.noarch.rpm ===== Additional comments ===== - You can safely drop those `Group:`-tags, too, since they are needed on <= el5, only. - I'd recommend to have the (Build)Requires split up one a line and have them sorted by alphabetical order. That would improve spec's readabily by far. One might split them up by subpackages, too. - I attached a patched spec-file which should fix all left issues and properly pick up the reST-files for %doc. - I'd love to see that for el6, too. So I added everything needed to build this on EPEL6 in the attached spec-file. Builds fine on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6089297 ===== Solution ===== NOT APPROVED -- If you apply the attached spec-file and provide new generated srpm from that, I can safely approve.
http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/tmp/python-behave.spec http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/tmp/python-behave-1.2.3-7.el7.src.rpm
All issues have been solved, now. Package LGTM. :) Don't forget to add me as comaintainer, please. APPROVED!!!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-behave Short Description: Tools for the behaviour-driven development, Python style Owners: mcepl besser82 Branches: f18 f19 f20 el6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
python-behave-1.2.3-7.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-behave-1.2.3-7.el6
python-behave-1.2.3-7.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-behave-1.2.3-7.fc19
python-behave-1.2.3-7.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-behave-1.2.3-7.fc20
python-behave-1.2.3-7.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-behave-1.2.3-7.fc18
python-behave-1.2.3-7.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
python-behave-1.2.3-7.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
python-behave-1.2.3-7.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
python-behave-1.2.3-7.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
python-behave-1.2.3-7.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.