[Bug 717680] Review Request: python-cloudservers - Client library for Rackspace's Cloud Servers API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717680 Miroslav Suchý changed: What|Removed |Added CC||acturne...@gmail.com --- Comment #9 from Miroslav Suchý 2011-10-10 06:24:12 EDT --- *** Bug 547622 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 717680] Review Request: python-cloudservers - Client library for Rackspace's Cloud Servers API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717680 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla 2011-09-24 11:26:29 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 717680] Review Request: python-cloudservers - Client library for Rackspace's Cloud Servers API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717680 Chris Lalancette changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Chris Lalancette 2011-09-21 14:18:07 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: python-cloudservers New Branches: f15 Owners: clalance InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 717680] Review Request: python-cloudservers - Client library for Rackspace's Cloud Servers API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717680 Chris Lalancette changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-07-07 09:02:30 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 717680] Review Request: python-cloudservers - Client library for Rackspace's Cloud Servers API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717680 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla 2011-07-07 06:12:40 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). imcleod not added, not in Packagers group. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 717680] Review Request: python-cloudservers - Client library for Rackspace's Cloud Servers API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717680 Chris Lalancette changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Chris Lalancette 2011-07-06 13:50:47 EDT --- Thanks again! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-cloudservers Short Description: Client library for Rackspace's Cloud Servers API Owners: clalance imcleod Branches: InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 717680] Review Request: python-cloudservers - Client library for Rackspace's Cloud Servers API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717680 Ryan Rix changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Ryan Rix 2011-07-06 13:01:09 EDT --- Looks great, Chris. APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 717680] Review Request: python-cloudservers - Client library for Rackspace's Cloud Servers API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717680
Chris Lalancette changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|needinfo?(clalance@redhat.c |
|om) |
--- Comment #3 from Chris Lalancette 2011-07-06 10:24:18
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> [+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package
> [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
> Guidelines
> [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [...]
> [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
> [-] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license
> and meet the Licensing Guidelines
> * Uses INSTALLED_FILES -- See first in
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Byte_compiling . Please use
> file globbing.
Ah, I didn't know about that recommendation. Fixed now.
>
> [?] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the
> actual license
> I can't find the license anywhere in the source tarball. Would you be so kind
> as to point out where the files are licensed as BSD?
Unfortunately this project doesn't ship a separate LICENSE file. The BSD
license is pointed out both in the setup.py and the PKG-INFO files.
>
> [?] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc
As above, there is no separate license file.
> [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
> [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
> [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
> source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for
> this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package,
> please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
> [+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary
> rpms on at least one primary architecture
> [n/a] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on
> an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the
> spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST
> have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package
> does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number
> MUST
> be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line
> [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except
> for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging
> Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply
> common sense.
> [n/a] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by
> using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
> forbidden
> [n/a] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
> library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's
> default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
> [n/a] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
> state this fact in the request for review, along with the
> rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without
> this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker.
> [-] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does
> not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a
> package
> which does create that directory.
> * See above usage of INSTALLED_FILES
Right, I think this should be fixed now.
>
> [+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files
> listing.
> [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should
> be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files
> section
> must include a %defattr(...) line.
> [+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
> %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
> [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
> [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
> [n/a] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
> definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but
> is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or
> quantity).
> [n/a] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
> runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the
> program mus
[Bug 717680] Review Request: python-cloudservers - Client library for Rackspace's Cloud Servers API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717680
Ryan Rix changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||needinfo?(clalance@redhat.c
||om)
--- Comment #2 from Ryan Rix 2011-07-05 18:00:11 EDT ---
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [...]
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
[-] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license
and meet the Licensing Guidelines
* Uses INSTALLED_FILES -- See first in
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Byte_compiling . Please use
file globbing.
[?] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the
actual license
I can't find the license anywhere in the source tarball. Would you be so kind
as to point out where the files are licensed as BSD?
[?] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for
this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package,
please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary
rpms on at least one primary architecture
[n/a] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on
an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the
spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST
have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package
does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST
be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except
for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging
Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply
common sense.
[n/a] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by
using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
forbidden
[n/a] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's
default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[n/a] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the
rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without
this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker.
[-] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does
not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package
which does create that directory.
* See above usage of INSTALLED_FILES
[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should
be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section
must include a %defattr(...) line.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[n/a] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but
is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or
quantity).
[n/a] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the
program must run properly if it is not present.
* note: Could docs/ or the generated readme be installed as %doc?
[n/a] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[n/a] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[n/a] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires:
pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability).
[n/a] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then lib
[Bug 717680] Review Request: python-cloudservers - Client library for Rackspace's Cloud Servers API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717680 Ryan Rix changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||r...@n.rix.si AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|r...@n.rix.si --- Comment #1 from Ryan Rix 2011-07-05 16:59:10 EDT --- As I already have 717666 installed on my machine, I'll take this one for a test ride. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 717680] Review Request: python-cloudservers - Client library for Rackspace's Cloud Servers API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717680 Bug 717680 depends on bug 717666, which changed state. Bug 717666 Summary: Review Request: python-prettytable - Python library to display tabular data in tables https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717666 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 717680] Review Request: python-cloudservers - Client library for Rackspace's Cloud Servers API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717680 Chris Lalancette changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||717666 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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
