Spec URL: http://ianweller.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-backports-lzma/0.0.2-1/python-backports-lzma.spec SRPM URL: http://ianweller.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-backports-lzma/0.0.2-1/python-backports-lzma-0.0.2-1.fc19.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: ianweller This is a backport of the "lzma" module included in Python 3.3 or later by Nadeem Vawda and Per Oyvind Karlsen, which provides a Python wrapper for XZ Utils (aka LZMA Utils v2) by Igor Pavlov.
(This doesn't quite build in a Koji scratch build yet because we are waiting on python-backports to get into the buildroot in rawhide. The build was done today.)
Spec URL: http://ianweller.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-backports-lzma/0.0.2-2/python-backports-lzma.spec SRPM URL: http://ianweller.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-backports-lzma/0.0.2-2/python-backports-lzma-0.0.2-2.fc19.src.rpm * Tue Aug 20 2013 Ian Weller <iweller> - 0.0.2-2 - BR: python-backports
Never mind, it builds in Koji now :) http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5834631 Spec URL: http://ianweller.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-backports-lzma/0.0.2-3/python-backports-lzma.spec SRPM URL: http://ianweller.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-backports-lzma/0.0.2-3/python-backports-lzma-0.0.2-3.fc19.src.rpm * Tue Aug 20 2013 Ian Weller <iweller> - 0.0.2-3 - Actually fix check section
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= Incorrect permissions here: python-backports-lzma.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/backports/lzma/_lzma.so 0775L Also, LICENSE file is present in upstream VCS for 0.0.2 release: https://raw.github.com/peterjc/backports.lzma/backports.lzma.v0.0.2/LICENSE You could include this as a SOURCE (or alternatively use the github release, but pypi probably preferred here). ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mockbuild/review/python-backports-lzma/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Python: [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [-]: 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 ===== 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). [?]: 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. [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 ===== 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-backports-lzma-0.0.2-3.fc20.x86_64.rpm python-backports-lzma.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Backport -> Back port, Back-port, Backpacker python-backports-lzma.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backport -> back port, back-port, backpacker python-backports-lzma.x86_64: W: no-documentation python-backports-lzma.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/backports/lzma/_lzma.so 0775L 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-backports-lzma python-backports-lzma.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Backport -> Back port, Back-port, Backpacker python-backports-lzma.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backport -> back port, back-port, backpacker python-backports-lzma.x86_64: W: no-documentation python-backports-lzma.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/backports/lzma/_lzma.so 0775L 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python-backports-lzma (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) liblzma.so.5()(64bit) liblzma.so.5(XZ_5.0)(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython2.7.so.1.0()(64bit) python(abi) python-backports rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- python-backports-lzma: python-backports-lzma python-backports-lzma(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- python-backports-lzma: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/backports/lzma/_lzma.so Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/b/backports.lzma/backports.lzma-0.0.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a0966deeb2533e96ea84dc0fb7948aa23421c7f061197133b62665a52dfa64e6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a0966deeb2533e96ea84dc0fb7948aa23421c7f061197133b62665a52dfa64e6 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -r -n python-backports-lzma-0.0.2-3.fc19.src.rpm
Spec URL: http://ianweller.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-backports-lzma/0.0.2-4/python-backports-lzma.spec SRPM URL: http://ianweller.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-backports-lzma/0.0.2-4/python-backports-lzma-0.0.2-4.fc18.src.rpm * Tue Aug 20 2013 Ian Weller <iweller> - 0.0.2-4 - Fix perms on _lzma.so - Add LICENSE from upstream
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-backports-lzma-0.0.2-4.fc21.x86_64.rpm python-backports-lzma-0.0.2-4.fc21.src.rpm <snip> python-backports-lzma.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/backports/lzma/_lzma.so <snip> 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Shouldn't _lzma.so be executable? Instead of `chmod a-x`, I would have changed from 0775 to 0755, which should make rpmlint happy.
Oops, sorry, accidentally granted the review...
Spec URL: http://ianweller.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-backports-lzma/0.0.2-5/python-backports-lzma.spec SRPM URL: http://ianweller.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-backports-lzma/0.0.2-5/python-backports-lzma-0.0.2-5.fc18.src.rpm * Tue Sep 17 2013 Ian Weller <iweller> - 0.0.2-5 - Fix perms on _lzma.so, again
Package approved!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-backports-lzma Short Description: Backport of Python 3.3's lzma module Owners: ianweller Branches: f18 f19 f20 el6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
python-datanommer-consumer-0.6.0-1.el6,python-datanommer-models-0.6.0-2.el6,datagrepper-0.2.0-1.el6,python-backports-lzma-0.0.2-5.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-datanommer-consumer-0.6.0-1.el6,python-datanommer-models-0.6.0-2.el6,datagrepper-0.2.0-1.el6,python-backports-lzma-0.0.2-5.el6
Package python-datanommer-consumer-0.6.0-1.el6, python-datanommer-models-0.6.0-2.el6, datagrepper-0.2.0-1.el6, python-backports-lzma-0.0.2-5.el6: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=epel-testing python-datanommer-consumer-0.6.0-1.el6 python-datanommer-models-0.6.0-2.el6 datagrepper-0.2.0-1.el6 python-backports-lzma-0.0.2-5.el6' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2013-11630/python-datanommer-consumer-0.6.0-1.el6,python-datanommer-models-0.6.0-2.el6,datagrepper-0.2.0-1.el6,python-backports-lzma-0.0.2-5.el6 then log in and leave karma (feedback).
Package datagrepper-0.2.1-1.el6, python-datanommer-consumer-0.6.0-1.el6, python-datanommer-models-0.6.0-2.el6, python-backports-lzma-0.0.2-5.el6: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=epel-testing datagrepper-0.2.1-1.el6 python-datanommer-consumer-0.6.0-1.el6 python-datanommer-models-0.6.0-2.el6 python-backports-lzma-0.0.2-5.el6' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2013-11630/python-datanommer-consumer-0.6.0-1.el6,python-datanommer-models-0.6.0-2.el6,datagrepper-0.2.1-1.el6,python-backports-lzma-0.0.2-5.el6 then log in and leave karma (feedback).
datagrepper-0.2.1-1.el6, python-datanommer-consumer-0.6.0-1.el6, python-datanommer-models-0.6.0-2.el6, python-backports-lzma-0.0.2-5.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: python-backports-lzma New Branches: epel7 Owners: goldmann
Any comments from the Fedora maintainer?
(In reply to Jon Ciesla from comment #17) > Any comments from the Fedora maintainer? I asked Ian in the bug 1066911 (which was created over two months ago) and didn't receive any response. This package blocks docker-registry to make it available to people in EPEL 7.
Hello, apologies for the delayed response. Please go ahead and make the change request, giving ownership of epel7 to goldmann.