Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915074 --- Comment #1 from Pierre-YvesChibon <pingou(a)pingoured.fr&gt; --- This package built on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5050268 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=dBGiqxwBwx&a=cc_unsubscribe

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915074 Ralph Bean <rbean(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rbean(a)redhat.com --- Comment #3 from Ralph Bean <rbean(a)redhat.com&gt; --- For some reason the following just hangs: $ wget https://fedorahosted.org/releases/f/e/fedocal/fedocal-0.1.0.tar.gz Any idea why Pierre? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=PghkqRpHi5&a=cc_unsubscribe

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915074 Ralph Bean <rbean(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |rbean(a)redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Ralph Bean <rbean(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires - Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Are you bundling flask_fas? - Not required, but can you make the directory ownership in %{python_sitelib} a little more explicit (instead of '*') - Not required, but can you run the tests in a %check section? ===== 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. [!]: 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 [-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package complies to the 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 (3 clause)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/threebean/915074-fedocal/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 102400 bytes in 12 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [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 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 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. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [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). 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]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [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]: 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. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== 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. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: fedocal-0.1.0-1.fc18.noarch.rpm fedocal.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iCal -> i Cal, Cal, Cali 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint fedocal fedocal.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iCal -> i Cal, Cal, Cali 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- fedocal (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(fedocal) mod_wsgi python(abi) python-alembic python-dateutil python-fedora python-flask python-flask-wtf python-kitchen python-setuptools python-sqlalchemy python-vobject python-wtforms pytz Provides -------- fedocal: config(fedocal) fedocal MD5-sum check ------------- https://fedorahosted.org/releases/f/e/fedocal/fedocal-0.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4ef2048b798e5576e6e7fb569b9eb05ed73421e5d6e5de64465c4949ed78c40e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4ef2048b798e5576e6e7fb569b9eb05ed73421e5d6e5de64465c4949ed78c40e Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29 Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 915074 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=p9hTvPgdpT&a=cc_unsubscribe

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915074 Ralph Bean <rbean(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Ralph Bean <rbean(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Approved! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=gccRQfYq8L&a=cc_unsubscribe

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915074 --- Comment #9 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. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=lsdHUJELxK&a=cc_unsubscribe

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915074 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- fedocal-0.1.0-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fedocal-0.1.0-3.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=voTPcfunil&a=cc_unsubscribe

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915074 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- Package fedocal-0.1.0-3.fc18: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing fedocal-0.1.0-3.fc18' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-3732/fedocal-0.1.0-3.... then log in and leave karma (feedback). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=BJaWpROVez&a=cc_unsubscribe

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915074 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- fedocal-0.1.1-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fedocal-0.1.1-1.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Mk4dykkbPT&a=cc_unsubscribe

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915074 Pierre-YvesChibon <pingou(a)pingoured.fr&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed| |2013-04-26 18:00:11 --- Comment #15 from Pierre-YvesChibon <pingou(a)pingoured.fr&gt; --- Indeed, something bugged in the inheritance of the updates on bodhi, closing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=TyzaCESXhS&a=cc_unsubscribe