https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174479 --- Comment #2 from Michele Baldessari <michele(a)acksyn.org&gt; --- Hi Stanislav, thanks for the comments. Yes, I need to think a bit more about this: - Some plugins require packages that only exist in rpmfusion (mp3gain) - Another plugin actually ships jquery and some more libs (so it would make sense to wait for jquery to hit the archive and then depend on it for this plugin) Unless you have a better idea, I'll probably try and split off the plugins in one single separate beets-plugins packages and I will disable those that depend on rpmfusion packages (at least when I was working on Debian this was a must otherwise the package had to go in contrib and not in main). cheers, Michele -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174479 --- Comment #4 from Michele Baldessari <michele(a)acksyn.org&gt; --- New upstream: Spec URL: http://acksyn.org/files/rpms/beets/beets.spec SRPM URL: http://acksyn.org/files/rpms/beets/beets-1.3.10-1.fc22.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174479 --- Comment #6 from Michele Baldessari <michele(a)acksyn.org&gt; --- Thanks for the review, Juan I have split off the doc in a separate -doc package. I have also added a comment as to why I am not using _smp_flags in the sphinx doc build (sphinx barfs out from time to time at the moment. There are some upstream issues related to this. Will need to track those down) Spec URL: http://acksyn.org/files/rpms/beets/beets.spec SRPM URL: http://acksyn.org/files/rpms/beets/beets-1.3.10-2.fc23.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174479 Juan Orti <juan.orti(a)miceliux.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |juan.orti(a)miceliux.com Flags| |fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174479 --- Comment #9 from Juan Orti <juan.orti(a)miceliux.com&gt; --- The spec file doesn't match the one in the srpm. Please, add a comment about the license explaining that only beetsplug/mbcollection.py is licensed as ISC. Everything else looks fine now. Please, do these changes and I'll do the final review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174479 Juan Orti <juan.orti(a)miceliux.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #11 from Juan Orti <juan.orti(a)miceliux.com&gt; --- Package is APPROVED. ===== 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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [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. [-]: 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. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [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 %doc. [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. Python: [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep [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 Note: Test run failed [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. Note: parallel make disabled due to bugs [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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. Note: checks disabled because it is forcing the download of pypi modules [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 (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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: beets-1.3.10-3.fc21.noarch.rpm beets-plugins-1.3.10-3.fc21.noarch.rpm beets-doc-1.3.10-3.fc21.noarch.rpm beets-1.3.10-3.fc21.src.rpm beets-plugins.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US operability -> penetrability, permeability, probability beets-plugins.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://beets.radbox.org/ [Errno 104] Connection reset by peer beets-plugins.noarch: W: no-documentation beets-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/beets-doc/html/_static/jquery.js 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- beets-plugins (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): beets gstreamer-python pylast python(abi) python-acoustid python-mpd python-musicbrainzngs python-requests beets (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python2 PyYAML python python(abi) python-enum34 python-mutagen python-unidecode beets-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- beets-plugins: beets-plugins beets: beets beets-doc: beets-doc Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/sampsyo/beets/archive/v1.3.10.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6413fd181f57b7e8fcc070b5c2cccd6f3694fb76f8487205d5ae03cbd75a899c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6413fd181f57b7e8fcc070b5c2cccd6f3694fb76f8487205d5ae03cbd75a899c -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174479 Fabian Affolter <mail(a)fabian-affolter.ch&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |1202140 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202140 [Bug 1202140] Review Request: python-rarfile - A RAR archive reader for Python -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174479 Fabian Affolter <mail(a)fabian-affolter.ch&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |mail(a)fabian-affolter.ch Depends On|1202140, 1202146 | --- Comment #13 from Fabian Affolter <mail(a)fabian-affolter.ch&gt; --- (In reply to Juan Orti from comment #11) No, the package is not working because of a missing dep. [fab@laptop017 noarch]$ beet Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/bin/beet", line 5, in <module> from pkg_resources import load_entry_point File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources.py", line 2709, in <module> working_set.require(__requires__) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources.py", line 664, in require needed = self.resolve(parse_requirements(requirements)) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources.py", line 567, in resolve raise DistributionNotFound(req) pkg_resources.DistributionNotFound: munkres Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202140 [Bug 1202140] Review Request: python-rarfile - A RAR archive reader for Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202146 [Bug 1202146] Review Request: python-munkres - A Munkres algorithm for Python -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174479 --- Comment #14 from Fabian Affolter <mail(a)fabian-affolter.ch&gt; --- As long as the test are not enabled, python-rarfile is not a dependency. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174479 --- Comment #15 from Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174479 --- Comment #17 from Juan Orti <juan.orti(a)miceliux.com&gt; --- I didn't notice it because I'm a regular user of beets and that library was also installed in my system. That's my fault, I'm sorry. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174479 Bug 1174479 depends on bug 1210053, which changed state. Bug 1210053 Summary: Update to python-enum34 1.0.4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210053 What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174479 Michele Baldessari <michele(a)acksyn.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2015-05-18 05:47:41 --- Comment #19 from Michele Baldessari <michele(a)acksyn.org&gt; --- 1.3.11 is now in rawhide. 1.3.12 introduced a new dependency (python-jellyfish). I will chase this in another BZ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component