https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233168

Haïkel Guémar karlthered@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |apevec@redhat.com, | |jpena@redhat.com, | |jruzicka@redhat.com

--- Comment #1 from Haïkel Guémar karlthered@gmail.com --- Note that we need to upgrade some other oslo libs (namely utils & config) and add python-monotic.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233168

--- Comment #2 from Alan Pevec apevec@redhat.com ---

Note that we need to upgrade some other oslo libs

Then we cannot import this to Rawhide until f23 is branched, f23 needs to keep Kilo versions, in the current Fedora/RDO setup. Please hold import until 2015-07-14 Branch Fedora 23 from Rawhide (Rawhide becomes future F24)

[*] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/23/Schedule

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233168 Bug 1233168 depends on bug 1233167, which changed state.

Bug 1233167 Summary: Review Request: python-monotonic - An implementation of time.monotonic() for Python 2 & < 3.3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233167

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233168

Alan Pevec apevec@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(williamjmorenor@g | |mail.com)

--- Comment #5 from Alan Pevec apevec@redhat.com --- Did you mean software supports python3 => must be packaged for python3 or more?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233168

Chandan Kumar chkumar@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |chkumar@redhat.com

--- Comment #6 from Chandan Kumar chkumar@redhat.com --- Here is the updated spec with python3 support: https://chandankumar.fedorapeople.org/python-oslo-service.spec

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233168

Javier Peña jpena@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jpena@redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233168

Javier Peña jpena@redhat.com changed:

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

--- Comment #8 from Javier Peña jpena@redhat.com ---

From our IRC conversation, I understand it is ok for the package not to have a

Python3 subpackage, due to the missing dependency.

I have a doubt on the license file for the -doc subpackage. From https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines, I understand that it should either depend on the base package or include the license file.

Other than that, it looks ok to me.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233168

Javier Peña jpena@redhat.com changed:

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

--- Comment #10 from Javier Peña jpena@redhat.com --- There is no %check section but since this is a SHOULD item we can live without it.

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)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/1233168-python-oslo-service/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 10240 bytes in 1 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]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [x]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2 -oslo-service , python-oslo-service-doc [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. [-]: 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]: 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: python2-oslo-service-0.9.0-2.fc24.noarch.rpm python-oslo-service-doc-0.9.0-2.fc24.noarch.rpm python-oslo-service-0.9.0-2.fc24.src.rpm python-oslo-service-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/python-oslo-service-doc/html/objects.inv 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python-oslo-service-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/python-oslo-service-doc/html/objects.inv 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Requires -------- python2-oslo-service (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-babel python-eventlet python-monotonic python-oslo-concurrency python-oslo-config python-oslo-i18n python-oslo-log python-oslo-utils python-paste python-paste-deploy python-six

python-oslo-service-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

Provides -------- python2-oslo-service: python-oslo-service python2-oslo-service

python-oslo-service-doc: python-oslo-service-doc

Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/o/oslo.service/oslo.service-0.9.0.ta... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f77753910391a1b2bd7fd9b5b863d7230b1ff727443dd2efcb725ce937ffb566 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f77753910391a1b2bd7fd9b5b863d7230b1ff727443dd2efcb725ce937ffb566

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1233168 -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

The package is APPROVED. Please go ahead and open the SCM request.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233168

Haïkel Guémar karlthered@gmail.com changed:

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

--- Comment #11 from Haïkel Guémar karlthered@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-oslo-service Short Description: Oslo service library Upstream URL: http://launchpad.net/oslo Owners: hguemar apevec jpena social Branches: InitialCC:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233168

--- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).