https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203801

Tomas Tomecek ttomecek@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |ttomecek@redhat.com

--- Comment #2 from Tomas Tomecek ttomecek@redhat.com --- But how about:

* koji -- binary plus python api * fedpkg -- same * fedora-review -- same * even fedmsg: which I think is primarily a python API, but also a collection of executables

With python-coverage, I somewhat get it: it's a tool for measuring test coverage of python code, imagine it would be called just coverage. That would be super confusing.

But if you really think it should be named python-osbs, I'm not gonna be a party pooper.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203801

--- Comment #4 from Tomas Tomecek ttomecek@redhat.com --- This rpmlint warning is already addressed upstream. Therefore I think the review is good to go:

osbs.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary osbs

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

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

Issues: ======= - 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. Note: Cannot find LICENSE in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text

===== MUST items =====

Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ttomecek/tmp/osbs-review/review- osbs/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: 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 1 files. [ ]: 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]: 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: [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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]: 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint ------- Checking: osbs-0.1-2.fc21.noarch.rpm osbs-0.1-2.fc21.src.rpm osbs.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/osbs/cli/main.py 0644L /usr/bin/python osbs.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary osbs 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:

Requires -------- osbs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python python(abi) python-pycurl python-requests

Provides -------- osbs: osbs

Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/DBuildService/osbs/archive/e073d7cc6cf7a07eafa00e2d44a654... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2b45fb0577ed6e246f39467abbccb3d5cb3384b806b424563fb3fe3ab406b4a7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2b45fb0577ed6e246f39467abbccb3d5cb3384b806b424563fb3fe3ab406b4a7

Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -n osbs Buildroot used: fedora-21-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203801

Tomas Tomecek ttomecek@redhat.com changed:

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

--- Comment #6 from Tomas Tomecek ttomecek@redhat.com --- Oh... I actually did, didn't know I should update the status. There we go:

[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". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ttomecek/tmp/osbs-review/review- osbs/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: 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. [x]: 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.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203801

Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:

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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203801

Jiri Popelka jpopelka@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2015-03-23 11:33:52

--- Comment #9 from Jiri Popelka jpopelka@redhat.com --- F23: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9303650 F22: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9303660 F21: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9303666 EL7: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9303668

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203801

--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- osbs-0.1-4.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/osbs-0.1-4.fc21

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203801

Tomas Tomecek ttomecek@redhat.com changed:

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

--- Comment #13 from Tomas Tomecek ttomecek@redhat.com --- Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: osbs New Branches: el6 Owners: ttomecek jpopelka InitialCC: ttomecek

We need this for epel 6.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203801

--- Comment #14 from Pavol Babinčák pbabinca@redhat.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203801

Patrick Uiterwijk puiterwijk@redhat.com changed:

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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203801

--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- osbs-0.2-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/osbs-0.2-1.fc22

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203801

--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- osbs-0.2-2.c1216ba.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/osbs-0.2-2.c1216ba.el6

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203801

--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- osbs-0.2-2.c1216ba.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/osbs-0.2-2.c1216ba.fc21

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203801

--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- osbs-0.2-2.c1216ba.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/osbs-0.2-2.c1216ba.fc22

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203801

--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- osbs-0.3-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/osbs-0.3-1.fc22

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203801

--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- osbs-0.3-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/osbs-0.3-1.fc20

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203801

--- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- osbs-0.3-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/osbs-0.3-1.el7

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203801

--- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- osbs-0.4-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/osbs-0.4-1.el7

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203801

--- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- osbs-0.4-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/osbs-0.4-1.fc20

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203801

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|osbs-0.2-2.c1216ba.fc21 |osbs-0.2-2.c1216ba.fc22

--- Comment #35 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- osbs-0.2-2.c1216ba.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203801

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|osbs-0.4-1.el6 |osbs-0.4-1.el7

--- Comment #37 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- osbs-0.4-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203801

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|osbs-0.4-1.fc20 |osbs-0.4-1.fc21

--- Comment #39 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- osbs-0.4-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.