https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243052

Haïkel Guémar karlthered@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |karlthered@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |karlthered@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243052

Thomas Oulevey thomas.oulevey@cern.ch changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |thomas.oulevey@cern.ch

--- Comment #1 from Thomas Oulevey thomas.oulevey@cern.ch --- Hi,

From %files you can remove :

%{python2_sitelib}/

et the same for python 3 :

%{python3_sitelib}/

Otherwise I couldn't spot anything else.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243052

Alan Pevec apevec@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |apevec@gmail.com

--- Comment #3 from Alan Pevec apevec@gmail.com --- sphinx-build doesn't fit %prep IMHO (it's pyp2rpm template bug that it puts it there) it should in %build

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243052

--- Comment #5 from Javier Peña jpena@redhat.com --- I have updated the spec to comply with the new Python packaging rules:

SPEC: https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/python-futurist/python-futurist.spec SRPM: https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/python-futurist/python-futurist-0.1.1-4.fc21....

Koji scratch build available at http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10687515

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243052

--- Comment #7 from Javier Peña jpena@redhat.com --- I was in doubt about the new rules, but re-looking at them it makes sense. I have updated the spec:

SPEC: https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/python-futurist/python-futurist.spec SRPM: https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/python-futurist/python-futurist-0.1.1-5.fc21....

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243052

--- Comment #9 from Alan Pevec apevec@gmail.com --- Bummer, python_provide macro didn't work well in CBS Cloud7 buildroot, it generated python2-* subpackage without Provides: python-*

http://cbs.centos.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=13145

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243052

--- Comment #11 from Haïkel Guémar karlthered@gmail.com --- The Requires have to be moved under the python2 subpackage or they won't be installed. The same goes for BuildRequires though it does not have side effects unlike the former.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243052

--- Comment #13 from Haïkel Guémar karlthered@gmail.com --- - Drop the useless python-sitelib definition - In %files, just give the directory or they'll be unowned %{python2_sitelib}/%{pypi_name} %{python3_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243052

Haïkel Guémar karlthered@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+

--- Comment #15 from Haïkel Guémar karlthered@gmail.com --- I hereby approve this package in Fedora Packages Collection, please submit a SCM request

Package Review ==============

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

===== 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: "Apache (v2.0)". Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/haikel/1243052-python-futurist/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 778240 bytes in 84 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 %license. [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]: Dist tag is present. [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 does not use a name that already exists. [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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2-futurist , python3-futurist [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. [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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint ------- Checking: python2-futurist-0.4.0-3.fc24.noarch.rpm python3-futurist-0.4.0-3.fc24.noarch.rpm python-futurist-0.4.0-3.fc24.src.rpm python-futurist.src: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog: Tue Aug 27 2015 jpena jpena@redhat.com - 0.4.0-2 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Requires -------- python2-futurist (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-contextlib2 python-futures python-monotonic python-six

python3-futurist (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-contextlib2 python3-monotonic python3-six

Provides -------- python2-futurist: python-futurist python2-futurist

python3-futurist: python3-futurist

Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/f/futurist/futurist-0.4.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a0c97c7dc7bd8fa1abe0012c129a303ba652074709bfed6c71730bbfce6f18bf CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a0c97c7dc7bd8fa1abe0012c129a303ba652074709bfed6c71730bbfce6f18bf

Generated by fedora-review 0.5.3 (bcf15e3) last change: 2015-05-04 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1243052 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243052

Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243052

Haïkel Guémar karlthered@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2015-09-16 04:44:50

--- Comment #18 from Haïkel Guémar karlthered@gmail.com --- Built in rawhide