[Bug 1033961] Review Request: powerline - The ultimate statusline/prompt utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033961 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|powerline-0.0.1-6.20131123g |powerline-0.0.1-6.20131123g |itdb80fc.fc19 |itdb80fc.fc20 --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- powerline-0.0.1-6.20131123gitdb80fc.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 1033961] Review Request: powerline - The ultimate statusline/prompt utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033961 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||powerline-0.0.1-6.20131123g ||itdb80fc.fc19 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-12-11 21:55:14 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- powerline-0.0.1-6.20131123gitdb80fc.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 1033961] Review Request: powerline - The ultimate statusline/prompt utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033961 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1033961] Review Request: powerline - The ultimate statusline/prompt utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033961 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- powerline-0.0.1-6.20131123gitdb80fc.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/powerline-0.0.1-6.20131123gitdb80fc.fc20 -- 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 1033961] Review Request: powerline - The ultimate statusline/prompt utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033961 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- powerline-0.0.1-6.20131123gitdb80fc.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/powerline-0.0.1-6.20131123gitdb80fc.fc19 -- 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 1033961] Review Request: powerline - The ultimate statusline/prompt utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033961 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- powerline-0.0.1-6.20131123gitdb80fc.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing 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 1033961] Review Request: powerline - The ultimate statusline/prompt utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033961 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. 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 1033961] Review Request: powerline - The ultimate statusline/prompt utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033961 --- Comment #20 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. 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 1033961] Review Request: powerline - The ultimate statusline/prompt utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033961 Andreas Schneider a...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- 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 1033961] Review Request: powerline - The ultimate statusline/prompt utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033961 --- Comment #19 from Andreas Schneider a...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: powerline Short Description: The ultimate status-line/prompt utility Owners: asn Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC: -- 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 1033961] Review Request: powerline - The ultimate statusline/prompt utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033961 --- Comment #17 from Andreas Schneider a...@redhat.com --- * Thu Nov 28 2013 - Andreas Schneider a...@redhat.com - 0.0.1-6.20131123gitdb80fc - Remove EPEL support. Spec URL: http://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/powerline/powerline.spec SRPM URL: http://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/powerline/powerline-0.0.1-6.20131123gitdb80fc.fc19.src.rpm -- 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 1033961] Review Request: powerline - The ultimate statusline/prompt utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033961 Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #18 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- Remove BuildRoot line. Package approved ! -- 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 1033961] Review Request: powerline - The ultimate statusline/prompt utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033961 --- Comment #11 from Andreas Schneider a...@redhat.com --- * Wed Nov 27 2013 - Andreas Schneider a...@redhat.com - 0.0.1.20131123gitdb80fc-4 - Added missing vim directories. - Fixed BuildRoot. - Use fdupes only on Fedora. - Use name tag in Requires. -- 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 1033961] Review Request: powerline - The ultimate statusline/prompt utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033961
--- Comment #12 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com ---
Above all, please, when you change your src package then post the new links to
.spec/src.rpm. Reviewer needs them for using 'fedora-review' tool (in fact,
note my previous comment .spec file and src rpm are not contiguous.).
- Why BuildRequires tag is so much high in the file ?
- I do still not see any comment for the patches. ;)
- %{checkout} goes in the Release tag.
See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Release_Tag
- Your package cannot be built in EPEL yet. I advice you to check it in koji
when it's ready ... and to post the links. :)
--
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 1033961] Review Request: powerline - The ultimate statusline/prompt utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033961 --- Comment #13 from Andreas Schneider a...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: http://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/powerline/powerline.spec SRPM URL: http://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/powerline/powerline-0.0.1-5.20131123gitdb80fc.fc19.src.rpm * Wed Nov 27 2013 - Andreas Schneider a...@redhat.com - 0.0.1-5.20131123gitdb80fc - Remove fontpatcher.py.patch - Moved BuildReqruies. - Try to fix build on EPEL5. a) There is only one patch and the comment would be the same as the filename, so I don't really see why to add a comment. b) Why does it need to work on EPEL5. Is this a requirement for Fedora? If yes, since when? -- 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 1033961] Review Request: powerline - The ultimate statusline/prompt utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033961 --- Comment #14 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Andreas Schneider from comment #13) Spec URL: http://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/powerline/powerline.spec SRPM URL: http://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/powerline/powerline-0.0.1-5.20131123gitdb80fc. fc19.src.rpm b) Why does it need to work on EPEL5. Is this a requirement for Fedora? If yes, since when? In comment#10, I written: ... if your package must be built in EPEL5 too: It's up to you! It's not a requirement for Fedora and I didn't say that it was. -- 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 1033961] Review Request: powerline - The ultimate statusline/prompt utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033961 --- Comment #15 from Andreas Schneider a...@redhat.com --- Ah ok, cause on EPEL5 python fails in the setup and on EPEL6 it fails compiling the documentation. So I would prefer not to have them on EPEL. -- 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 1033961] Review Request: powerline - The ultimate statusline/prompt utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033961
--- Comment #16 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Andreas Schneider from comment #15)
So I would prefer not to have them on EPEL.
You don't need BuildRoot and
%if 0%{?rhel} 0%{?rhel} = 5
%{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib()))}
%{!?python_sitearch: %global python_sitearch %(%{__python} -c from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib(1)))}
%endif
anymore.
Not even of the '%if 0%{?fedora}' conditional line for fdupes and %{buildroot}
cleaning in %install section.
--
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 1033961] Review Request: powerline - The ultimate statusline/prompt utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033961 Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|anto.tra...@gmail.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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1033961] Review Request: powerline - The ultimate statusline/prompt utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033961
--- Comment #10 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com ---
- .spec file and src rpm are not contiguous.
- %{_datadir}/vim/site|plugin directories are not owned
- Why not using %{name} instead of powerline in the Require tags ?
- You can use the commit direct download link for Source0
https://github.com/Lokaltog/powerline/archive/db80fc95ed01d2c559c4bdc7da8514ed3cc7fcd9.zip
- Please, leave a comment or an upstream link about the patches
I see a BuildRoot tag so if your package must be built in EPEL5 too:
- Buildroot is not like those proposed by EPEL packaging guidelines for EPEL5
and below
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#BuildRoot_tag) and
- BuildRoot cleanings are missing
- 'fdupes' is not in EPEL*
- Consider that %{__python2} macro could not work
- In RHEL 5 and older, python2 packages that install python modules need to
define python_sitelib/python_sitearch macros
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros
else
- Remove Buildroot tag
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
= 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. 85 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1033961-powerline/licensecheck.txt
[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/vim/site/plugin, /usr/share/vim/site
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/vim/site,
/usr/share/vim/site/plugin
[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 860160 bytes in 81 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: 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 %doc.
[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
[!]: 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]: 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
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package
[Bug 1033961] Review Request: powerline - The ultimate statusline/prompt utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033961
Simo Sorce sso...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sso...@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Simo Sorce sso...@redhat.com ---
rpmlint complaints
| powerline.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zsh - sh, ssh, ash
| powerline.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
powerline-0.0.1.20131123gitdb80fc.tar.gz
| 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
1 is obviously bogus
however 2 indicates some errors:
- Source0 is supposed to be the URL where to find the package, I suppose the
git tree when it is a checkout ?
- you should use %{checkout} in Version and set Checkout: 20131123gitdb80fc,
see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1033961] Review Request: powerline - The ultimate statusline/prompt utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033961 --- Comment #2 from Andreas Schneider a...@redhat.com --- * Sun Nov 24 2013 - Andreas Schneider a...@redhat.com - 0.0.1.20131123gitdb80fc-2 - Set checkout. - Set source url - Fix default configuration path. The spelling error is no error. -- 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 1033961] Review Request: powerline - The ultimate statusline/prompt utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033961 Michele Baldessari mich...@acksyn.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mich...@acksyn.org --- Comment #3 from Michele Baldessari mich...@acksyn.org --- Thanks for this package ;) Just a drive-by comment as a happy powerline user. You need to add python2-devel or python3-devel in the BuildRequires: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires -- 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 1033961] Review Request: powerline - The ultimate statusline/prompt utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033961 --- Comment #4 from Andreas Schneider a...@redhat.com --- I don't see why python-devel is needed. -- 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 1033961] Review Request: powerline - The ultimate statusline/prompt utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033961 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Hrozek jhro...@redhat.com --- Here is a koji build with latest Andreas' package: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6220268 The only thing in the specfile that might need changing is that subpackages (vim-plugin-powerline and tmux-powerline) should require the main package with full NVR. -- 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 1033961] Review Request: powerline - The ultimate statusline/prompt utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033961 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Hrozek jhro...@redhat.com --- python-devel is not needed, powerline is written entirely in Python, python-devel is normally needed for python bindings. -- 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 1033961] Review Request: powerline - The ultimate statusline/prompt utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033961 --- Comment #7 from Michele Baldessari mich...@acksyn.org --- Well I guess the Python guidelines need an update or fedora-review needs fixing then -- 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 1033961] Review Request: powerline - The ultimate statusline/prompt utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033961
--- Comment #8 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
1. Please sort your spec for readability:
Move:
BuildRequires: python-setuptools python-sphinx fdupes fontconfig tmux
vim-minimal
BuildArch: noarch
after
Url:https://github.com/Lokaltog/powerline
2.
%define checkout 20131123gitdb80fc
--
%global checkout 20131123gitdb80fc
And ask upstream to tag the project.
3. %build
Add a note like
#nothing to build.
4. install with -p option to preserve the timestamp.
5. %fdupes %{buildroot}%{python_sitelib}
What's this crap?
6. Just one line in %files:
%{_datadir}/%{name}
No need to
%dir %{_datadir}/%{name}
%{_datadir}/%{name}/fontpatcher-symbols.sfd
7. python setup.py install --prefix=%{_prefix} --root=%{buildroot} --optimize=1
Use:
%{__python2} setup.py install --prefix=%{_prefix} --root=%{buildroot}
--optimize=1
--
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 1033961] Review Request: powerline - The ultimate statusline/prompt utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033961 --- Comment #9 from Andreas Schneider a...@redhat.com --- Thanks for your comment. 1. Moved BuildArch, prefer BuildRequires on top! 2. done 3. done 4. -a now 5. no crap (man fdupes) 6. wont change, I prefer two or more 7. done -- 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
