https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1678387 Hirotaka Wakabayashi <hiwkby(a)yahoo.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |hiwkby(a)yahoo.com --- Comment #1 from Hirotaka Wakabayashi <hiwkby(a)yahoo.com&gt; --- Hello, this is not a complete review, but I hope it helps to saves someone's time. Summary ======= 1. rpmlint results(No errors and no warnings) 2. Koji scratch build succeeded Details ======= 1. rpmlint results(No errors and no warnings) --------------------------------------------- Here are the results of rpmlint. No errors and warnings found. $ rpmlint -i /home/vagrant/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/python3-flask-caching-1.4.0-1.fc29.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint -i /home/vagrant/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/python-flask-caching-doc-1.4.0-1.fc29.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint -i python-flask-caching.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint -i /home/vagrant/rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-flask-caching-1.4.0-1.fc29.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. 2. Koji scratch build succeeded ------------------------------- Here is the result of "koji build --scratch rawhide python-flask-caching-1.4.0-1.fc29.src.rpm" https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=32923263 Here is how to run a Koji scratch build. A koji successful build shows that your package built correctly. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_the_Koji_build_system#Scratch_Builds Thanks in advance, Hirotaka Wakabayashi -- 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=1678387 Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST CC| |zebob.m(a)gmail.com Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |zebob.m(a)gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com&gt; --- - Bump to 1.5.0, released yesterday - It would be nice to run the tests with Pytest, they are not included within the Pypi archive but are in the Github one. Package approved otherwise. 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: "BSD (unspecified)", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Unknown or generated". 28 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-flask-caching /review-python-flask-caching/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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: 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]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3 -flask-caching , python-flask-caching-doc [?]: 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: 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: [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: python3-flask-caching-1.4.0-1.fc31.noarch.rpm python-flask-caching-doc-1.4.0-1.fc31.noarch.rpm python-flask-caching-1.4.0-1.fc31.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- 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=1678387 --- Comment #5 from Lukas Brabec <lbrabec(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Thanks Frantisek, here is updated spec file and srpm with enabled tests: SPEC: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/lbrabec/python-flask-cach... SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/lbrabec/python-flask-cach... -- 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=1678387 Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? |needinfo?(zebob.m(a)gmail.com | |) | --- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com&gt; --- I already approved this package… the tests runs fine now (97 passed, 70 skipped in 87.03 seconds). -- 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=1678387 --- Comment #8 from Gwyn Ciesla <gwync(a)protonmail.com&gt; --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-flask-caching -- 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=1678387 František Zatloukal <fzatlouk(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Version|29 |rawhide Fixed In Version| |python-flask-caching-1.7.2- | |1.fc32 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2019-10-31 20:13:28 --- Comment #10 from František Zatloukal <fzatlouk(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Fixed by python-flask-caching-1.7.2-1.fc32 -- 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