[Bug 1019824] Review Request: python-dopy - Python client for the Digital Ocean API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019824 Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-11-10 17:23:36 -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1019824] Review Request: python-dopy - Python client for the Digital Ocean API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019824 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-dopy-0.2.2-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1019824] Review Request: python-dopy - Python client for the Digital Ocean API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019824 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-dopy-0.2.2-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1019824] Review Request: python-dopy - Python client for the Digital Ocean API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019824 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-dopy-0.2.2-3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1019824] Review Request: python-dopy - Python client for the Digital Ocean API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019824 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-dopy-0.2.2-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1019824] Review Request: python-dopy - Python client for the Digital Ocean API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019824 Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1019824] Review Request: python-dopy - Python client for the Digital Ocean API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019824 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-dopy-0.2.2-3.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-dopy-0.2.2-3.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1019824] Review Request: python-dopy - Python client for the Digital Ocean API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019824 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-dopy-0.2.2-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-dopy-0.2.2-3.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1019824] Review Request: python-dopy - Python client for the Digital Ocean API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019824 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1019824] Review Request: python-dopy - Python client for the Digital Ocean API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019824 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-dopy-0.2.2-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-dopy-0.2.2-3.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1019824] Review Request: python-dopy - Python client for the Digital Ocean API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019824 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-dopy-0.2.2-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-dopy-0.2.2-3.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1019824] Review Request: python-dopy - Python client for the Digital Ocean API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019824
Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com ---
Package is fine now :)
#
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
= 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:
Unknown or generated. 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/1019824-python-
dopy/licensecheck.txt
[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 3 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]: 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]: 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]: 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.
[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]: 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).
[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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
--- no unitests or testsuite available
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq,
[Bug 1019824] Review Request: python-dopy - Python client for the Digital Ocean API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019824 Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-dopy Short Description: Python client for the Digital Ocean API Owners: ralph Branches: f20 f19 f18 el6 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1019824] Review Request: python-dopy - Python client for the Digital Ocean API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019824 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1019824] Review Request: python-dopy - Python client for the Digital Ocean API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019824 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1019824] Review Request: python-dopy - Python client for the Digital Ocean API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019824
--- Comment #5 from Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com ---
Unfortunately the hashbang and no-doc issues still persist:
Rpmlint
---
Checking: python-dopy-0.2.2-2.fc21.noarch.rpm
python-dopy-0.2.2-2.fc21.src.rpm
python-dopy.noarch: W: no-documentation
python-dopy.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/dopy/manager.py 0644L /usr/bin/env
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
# rpmlint python-dopy
python-dopy.noarch: W: no-documentation
python-dopy.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/dopy/manager.py 0644L /usr/bin/env
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
You can resolve the hashbang issue by using (your approach somehow doesn't
work):
for lib in ${modname}/*.py; do
sed '1{/^#!.*/d}' $lib $lib.new \
touch -r $lib $lib.new \
mv $lib.new $lib
done
and the no-doc issue is solved by adding:
%doc CHANGES LICENSE README.rst
Please make those changes and I can approve. :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1019824] Review Request: python-dopy - Python client for the Digital Ocean API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019824
--- Comment #6 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com ---
Got it! Here's a third release including docs and fixing the hashbang issue.
Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-dopy.spec
SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-dopy-0.2.2-3.fc19.src.rpm
In case you were wondering, *both* your and my snippets for removing the
hashbang failed. The reason: we both had a typo for ${modname} where we
should have %{modname}.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1019824] Review Request: python-dopy - Python client for the Digital Ocean API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019824 --- Comment #4 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- Thanks! Here's a new release that addresses those two issues: Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-dopy.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-dopy-0.2.2-2.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1019824] Review Request: python-dopy - Python client for the Digital Ocean API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019824 --- Comment #1 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- This package built on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6065180 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1019824] Review Request: python-dopy - Python client for the Digital Ocean API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019824 Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||bjoern.es...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bjoern.es...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com --- taken :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1019824] Review Request: python-dopy - Python client for the Digital Ocean API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019824
--- Comment #3 from Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com ---
Package has minor issues. :(
You should add BuildRequires: python-setuptools.
Please remove the hashbang from `manager.py` during %prep.
#
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
= 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.
[!]: 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.
--- see rpmlint report
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/1019824-python-
dopy/licensecheck.txt
--- License-tag is fine :)
[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.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
--- Issues present
[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]: 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]: 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]: 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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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]: 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).
[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.
[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]: 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
