https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452649 Richard W.M. Jones <rjones(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rjones(a)redhat.com Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |rjones(a)redhat.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=1452649 --- Comment #2 from Richard W.M. Jones <rjones(a)redhat.com&gt; --- You might want to take a look at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_common_spec_file In particular, the Source url is (probably) wrong. It would be good to have a full link to the tarball there. -- 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=1452649 --- Comment #4 from Luke Hinds <lhinds(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Hey Rich, I refreshed the following that fixes rpmlint errors (without the --all flag) $ rpmlint python-exabgp.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/lukehinds/ExaBGP-Packaging/master/pytho... SRPM URL: https://github.com/lukehinds/ExaBGP-Packaging/raw/master/python-exabgp-4.... In your verbose log, I am not to sure what to do with some, as they don't make an awful lot of sense: non-standard-executable-perm /etc/exabgp/examples/aggregator.conf 744 I think other stuff like 'wrong-script-interpreter' is due the python scripts being libraries, more then executables. What flags are passing to rpmbuild so I can replicate your workflow? -- 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=1452649 --- Comment #6 from Richard W.M. Jones <rjones(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Fedora-review is complaining that the spec file and the spec file inside the SRPM (both linked from comment 4) are slightly different, but it's only the %description which is different, so don't worry about it for now. A few issues about the spec file in general. - %defattr is not needed. It can be deleted. - Group is not needed. It can be deleted. - The %{!?...} lines at the top are not needed in Fedora (not sure about RHEL). I'm still seeing a large number of rpmlint errors, so let's see: python-exabgp.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/exabgp/application/bmp.py /usr/bin/env python python-exabgp.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/exabgp/application/bmp.py 644 /usr/bin/env python - This (and similar) is likely to be wrong, unless (a) that file is really a script rather than a library and (b) it can run under any version of python2 (or any version of python if we later rename python3 -> python). However the Python Packaging Guidelines seem to be silent on this so I don't know if it's a packaging bug. exabgp.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C ExaBGP allows engineers to control their network from commodity servers. Think of it as Software Defined Networking using BGP by transforming BGP messages into friendly plain text or JSON. - Worth folding the lines at 72 chars I guess. exabgp.noarch: E: non-standard-executable-perm /etc/exabgp/examples/addpath.conf 744 exabgp.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /etc/exabgp/examples/addpath.conf - That doesn't make much sense for any file. Should it be 0644? In the spec file: %attr(744, root, root) %{_sysconfdir}/exabgp/examples/* exabgp.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/exabgp.1.gz exabgp.noarch: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/exabgp.1.gz 3: warning: macro `OS' not defined exabgp.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man5/exabgp.conf.5.gz exabgp.noarch: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man5/exabgp.conf.5.gz 3: warning: macro `OS' not defined - Should be fixable I think? -- 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=1452649 --- Comment #8 from Richard W.M. Jones <rjones(a)redhat.com&gt; --- %doc COPYRIGHT should be %license COPYRIGHT The other two %doc files are OK as they are not license files. Unfortunately I don't think that %license will work on RHEL so you may need some %if's around that. The package couldn't be installed (in a chroot). However fedora-review doesn't keep the actual error from that, so it might just be an error caused by the systemd unit scripts. The exabgp package depends on /usr/bin/perl which seems to be a bug. Although the documentation mentions "a perl based healthcheck program", the one included in this package is most definitely written in Python, and there are no other perl binaries or libraries that I can see. There are still loads of rpmlint errors of this kind: exabgp.noarch: E: non-executable-script /etc/exabgp/examples/api-announcement.run 644 /usr/bin/env python rpmlint is literally correct here that there is a script which is not executable. Is it intended that the end user will chmod +x the script(s) that they need? Another rpmlint problem is: exabgp.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/exabgp/examples/api-api.conf If these files are meant to be edited, then they must be marked as %config or %config(noreplace) in the spec: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Configuration_files If they are not meant to be edited (just symlinked to) then I guess moving them to /usr/lib/exabgp is a better idea? -- 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=1452649 --- Comment #10 from Richard W.M. Jones <rjones(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines I'm going to ignore this one because (a) it could be a local issue (b) fedora-review / systemd / whatever throws away the actual error message so I've no idea what the problem is. - Permissions on files are set properly. Note: See rpmlint output See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions Discussed extensively on this review bug, see previous comments. - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel I don't know why fedora-review prints this, but according to the Python packaging guidelines this is fine. - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /etc/exabgp/exabgp.conf See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles This is a bug. ===== 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. 3 clause BSD. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 587 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/1452649-python- exabgp/licensecheck.txt Upstream could add proper notices to more files, but it doesn't look as if there is anything wrong. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/exabgp [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/exabgp Probably need to add %dir for this directory. By the way, in the spec you can use %{_datadir} instead of %{_prefix}/share. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed %defattr isn't required even for RHEL 7, so this should be deleted unless you're really intending to use this spec file for ancient versions of RPM. [-]: 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. [-]: 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. It seems as if the exabgp subpackage should have ‘Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}’. Currently the exabgp package requires ‘config(exabgp)’ which python-exabgp provides, but that won't be sufficient to pull in the correct version. [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. Package seems to be written entirely in Python, so it should be fine. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 163840 bytes in 4 files. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines Possibly, but I still think the not-really-config /etc/exabgp/examples files should be moved to /usr/lib/exabgp. [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [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: [ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. I didn't check this, but I guess they don't. In any case you'll quickly find out when you build this in Koji. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [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). I suspect exabgp should require python-exabgp. The other dependencies look fine. [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in exabgp See above. [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. Yes. Latest upstream version is also 4.0.0. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint Actually the mock build didn't fail, but the install failed. See above. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.4.1 starting (python version = 3.6.1)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux disabled Finish: init plugins Start: init plugins INFO: selinux disabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled dnf cache Start: cleaning dnf metadata Finish: cleaning dnf metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 1.4.1 INFO: Mock Version: 1.4.1 Finish: chroot init Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled dnf cache Start: cleaning dnf metadata Finish: cleaning dnf metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 1.4.1 INFO: Mock Version: 1.4.1 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /var/tmp/1452649-python-exabgp/results/exabgp-4.0.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm /var/tmp/1452649-python-exabgp/results/python-exabgp-4.0.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn -q -M 5ae0e883fefc44b4b1d82854759824ba -D /var/lib/mock/fedora-26-x86_64-bootstrap/root -a --setenv=TERM=vt100 --setenv=SHELL=/bin/bash --setenv=HOME=/builddir --setenv=HOSTNAME=mock --setenv=PATH=/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin --setenv=PROMPT_COMMAND=printf "\033]0;<mock-chroot>\007" --setenv=PS1=<mock-chroot> \s-\v\$ --setenv=LANG=en_GB.UTF-8 --setenv=LC_MESSAGES=C /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-26-x86_64/root/ --releasever 26 --disableplugin=local --setopt=deltarpm=false install /var/tmp/1452649-python-exabgp/results/exabgp-4.0.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm /var/tmp/1452649-python-exabgp/results/python-exabgp-4.0.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-exabgp-4.0.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm exabgp-4.0.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm python-exabgp-4.0.0-1.fc26.src.rpm python-exabgp.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) swiss -> swiz, Swiss, swigs python-exabgp.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 4.0.0 ['4.0.0-1.fc26', '4.0.0-1'] python-exabgp.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/exabgp/application/bmp.py /usr/bin/env python python-exabgp.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/exabgp/application/bmp.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python-exabgp.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/exabgp/application/cli.py /usr/bin/env python python-exabgp.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/exabgp/application/cli.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python-exabgp.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/exabgp/application/healthcheck.py /usr/bin/env python python-exabgp.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/exabgp/application/healthcheck.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python-exabgp.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/exabgp/application/netlink.py 644 /usr/bin/python python-exabgp.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/exabgp/application/tojson.py /usr/bin/env python python-exabgp.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/exabgp/application/tojson.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python-exabgp.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/exabgp/netlink/old.py 644 /usr/bin/python python-exabgp.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/exabgp/reactor/api/options.py /usr/bin/env python python-exabgp.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/exabgp/reactor/api/options.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python-exabgp.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/exabgp/reactor/api/response/json.py /usr/bin/env python python-exabgp.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/exabgp/reactor/api/response/json.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python-exabgp.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/exabgp/reactor/api/response/text.py /usr/bin/env python python-exabgp.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/exabgp/reactor/api/response/text.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python-exabgp.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/exabgp/vendoring/bitstring.py /usr/bin/env python python-exabgp.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/exabgp/vendoring/bitstring.py 644 /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) swiss -> swiz, Swiss, swigs exabgp.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US healthcheck -> health check, health-check, leatherneck exabgp.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US maintenances -> maintenance, maintenance's, maintenance s exabgp.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /etc/exabgp/examples/api-add-remove.run /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: E: non-executable-script /etc/exabgp/examples/api-add-remove.run 644 /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /etc/exabgp/examples/api-announce.run /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: E: non-executable-script /etc/exabgp/examples/api-announce.run 644 /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /etc/exabgp/examples/api-announcement.run /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: E: non-executable-script /etc/exabgp/examples/api-announcement.run 644 /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /etc/exabgp/examples/api-api.nothing.run /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: E: non-executable-script /etc/exabgp/examples/api-api.nothing.run 644 /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /etc/exabgp/examples/api-api.receive.run /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: E: non-executable-script /etc/exabgp/examples/api-api.receive.run 644 /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /etc/exabgp/examples/api-attributes.run /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: E: non-executable-script /etc/exabgp/examples/api-attributes.run 644 /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /etc/exabgp/examples/api-broken-flow.run /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: E: non-executable-script /etc/exabgp/examples/api-broken-flow.run 644 /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /etc/exabgp/examples/api-check.run /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: E: non-executable-script /etc/exabgp/examples/api-check.run 644 /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /etc/exabgp/examples/api-eor.run /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: E: non-executable-script /etc/exabgp/examples/api-eor.run 644 /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /etc/exabgp/examples/api-fast.run /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: E: non-executable-script /etc/exabgp/examples/api-fast.run 644 /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /etc/exabgp/examples/api-flow.run /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: E: non-executable-script /etc/exabgp/examples/api-flow.run 644 /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /etc/exabgp/examples/api-multi-neighbor.run /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: E: non-executable-script /etc/exabgp/examples/api-multi-neighbor.run 644 /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /etc/exabgp/examples/api-multisession.run /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: E: non-executable-script /etc/exabgp/examples/api-multisession.run 644 /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /etc/exabgp/examples/api-nexthop-self.run /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: E: non-executable-script /etc/exabgp/examples/api-nexthop-self.run 644 /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /etc/exabgp/examples/api-nexthop.run /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: E: non-executable-script /etc/exabgp/examples/api-nexthop.run 644 /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /etc/exabgp/examples/api-notification.run /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: E: non-executable-script /etc/exabgp/examples/api-notification.run 644 /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /etc/exabgp/examples/api-open.run /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: E: non-executable-script /etc/exabgp/examples/api-open.run 644 /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /etc/exabgp/examples/api-reload.run /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: E: non-executable-script /etc/exabgp/examples/api-reload.run 644 /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /etc/exabgp/examples/api-teardown.run /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: E: non-executable-script /etc/exabgp/examples/api-teardown.run 644 /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /etc/exabgp/examples/api-vpls.run /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: E: non-executable-script /etc/exabgp/examples/api-vpls.run 644 /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /etc/exabgp/examples/api-vpnv4.run /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: E: non-executable-script /etc/exabgp/examples/api-vpnv4.run 644 /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /etc/exabgp/examples/manual-eor.run /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: E: non-executable-script /etc/exabgp/examples/manual-eor.run 644 /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /etc/exabgp/examples/watchdog.run /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: E: non-executable-script /etc/exabgp/examples/watchdog.run 644 /usr/bin/env python exabgp.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/systemd/system/exabgp.service exabgp.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/share/exabgp/etc 644 exabgp.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/share/exabgp/processes 644 exabgp.noarch: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/share/exabgp/processes/watchdog-1.sh 744 exabgp.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/exabgp.1.gz exabgp.noarch: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/exabgp.1.gz 3: warning: macro `OS' not defined exabgp.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man5/exabgp.conf.5.gz exabgp.noarch: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man5/exabgp.conf.5.gz 3: warning: macro `OS' not defined exabgp.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary exabgp-healthcheck python-exabgp.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) swiss -> swiz, Swiss, swigs 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 68 errors, 11 warnings. Requires -------- python-exabgp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-ipaddr python-six python2 exabgp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/env /usr/bin/perl /usr/bin/python2 config(exabgp) systemd Provides -------- python-exabgp: python-exabgp python2.7dist(exabgp) python2dist(exabgp) exabgp: config(exabgp) exabgp Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Exa-Networks/exabgp/archive/4.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 054edde08d9d60789435e6848a2d3fba5718f14e49cb79a440c119a96cab7f6a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 054edde08d9d60789435e6848a2d3fba5718f14e49cb79a440c119a96cab7f6a Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1452649 Buildroot used: fedora-26-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api, Perl Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 -- 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=1452649 --- Comment #12 from Richard W.M. Jones <rjones(a)redhat.com&gt; --- (In reply to Richard W.M. Jones from comment #10) Fixed by adding BR: python2-devel This is fixed by removing the duplicate line. This is not fixed. Not fixed. Not fixed. Not changed. See above. -- 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=1452649 Richard W.M. Jones <rjones(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #14 from Richard W.M. Jones <rjones(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Good, it looks like everything is fixed satisfactorily in the latest release. *** Therefore I am APPROVING this package for Fedora *** You must now continue the process here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Ge... I believe you're either at step "Get sponsored" or "Add Package to Source Code Management (SCM) system". Let me know if there's anything else I can help with. -- 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=1452649 --- Comment #16 from Gwyn Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-exabgp -- 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=1452649 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED -- 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=1452649 Thomas Mangin <thomas(a)mangin.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |thomas(a)mangin.com --- Comment #19 from Thomas Mangin <thomas(a)mangin.com&gt; --- Thank you for this work. Much appreciated. As I noticed that you would have preferred to see the copyright in every file. I fired my editor and done some search and replace before 4.0.1: https://github.com/Exa-Networks/exabgp/commit/dbd58a009c70628d89e7831aa11... If ever you ever find anything which does not follow any Fedora Guideline, I will happily fix it. -- 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=1452649 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- python-exabgp-4.0.0-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-9aca13bcc7 -- 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=1452649 --- Comment #23 from Luke Hinds <lhinds(a)redhat.com&gt; --- @Thomas, is that on master? We are pinned to 4.0.0, so I will make the changes in the spec for the next release. -- 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=1452649 --- Comment #25 from Thomas Mangin <thomas(a)mangin.com&gt; --- 4.0.1 was released today -- 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=1452649 Alan Pevec <apevec(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1427510 (RDO-PIKE) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1427510 [Bug 1427510] Tracker: Blockers and Review requests for new RDO Pike packages -- 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