https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838675

Terje Røsten terjeros@phys.ntnu.no changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |837744

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838675

--- Comment #2 from Terje Røsten terjeros@phys.ntnu.no --- Sorry, I don't understand, the package provide bs4 for python and python3.

bs3 is left untounced as python2 only package.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838675

Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwizart@gmail.com changed:

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

--- Comment #4 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwizart@gmail.com --- OK I miss that you want to build both flavor Now it's remain questionable to still have python-BS-3.2x as compatibility package.

Here are the package that depends on it: OpenLP-0:1.9.9-1.fc17.noarch OpenLP-0:1.9.10-2.fc17.noarch anki-0:1.2.9-4.fc17.noarch calibre-0:0.8.42-1.fc17.x86_64 calibre-0:0.8.50-1.fc17.x86_64 mediascrapper-0:0.1-9.fc17.noarch moksha-0:0.5.0-5.fc15.noarch moksha-0:0.8.6-1.fc17.noarch python-imdb-0:4.7-2.fc17.x86_64 python-tw2-jit-0:2.0.3-4.fc17.noarch python-xgoogle-0:1.4-4.fc17.noarch scap-workbench-0:0.6.3-1.fc17.noarch sugar-read-0:99-1.fc17.noarch wordgroupz-0:0.3.1-5.fc17.noarch

If the python2 version can run with python-BS-4x there is no reason to keep this compatibility package.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838675

Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838675

--- Comment #6 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- I will review this package

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838675

--- Comment #7 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============

Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated

==== Generic ==== [!]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 [-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: MUST 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]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.

rpmlint python-beautifulsoup4-4.1.1-1.fc17.noarch.rpm

python-beautifulsoup4.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python-html5lib python-beautifulsoup4.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python3-html5lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings.

rpmlint python-beautifulsoup4-4.1.1-1.fc17.src.rpm

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

rpmlint python3-beautifulsoup4-4.1.1-1.fc17.noarch.rpm

python3-beautifulsoup4.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided python3-BeautifulSoup 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/slaanesh/Documents/fedora/838675/beautifulsoup4-4.1.1.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : fccee58b4d914fb489385d672fe89f43 MD5SUM upstream package : fccee58b4d914fb489385d672fe89f43

[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838675

--- Comment #9 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com ---

%package -n python3-beautifulsoup4 Obsoletes: python3-BeautifulSoup < 1:4.1.0-1

I can't find "python3-BeautifulSoup < 1:4.1.0-1" in the Fedora packages, the last version in Fedora is 1:3.2.1-1:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=301717

What is your plan for the updates? Do you plan to introduce the package also for Fedora 16/17 thus obsoleting the package already in stable? Does it produce any breakage?

Apart from these small issues the package looks good.

Regards, --Simone

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838675

Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com changed:

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

--- Comment #11 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- Approved!

Thanks, --Simone

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838675

--- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838675

--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-beautifulsoup4-4.1.1-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-beautifulsoup4-4.1.1-2.fc17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838675

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA

--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-beautifulsoup4-4.1.1-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838675

--- Comment #18 from Terje Røsten terjeros@phys.ntnu.no --- Yeah, I see that now, some req. need to be moved.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838675

--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-beautifulsoup4-4.1.1-4.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838675

Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com changed:

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

--- Comment #22 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com --- Adding an epel branch. See bug 883537 where the Fedora maintainer is fine with me doing an epel branch.

Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: python-beautifulsoup4 New Branches: el6 Owners: kevin InitialCC: