[Bug 1123397] Review Request: python-bcdoc - Tools to help document botocore-based projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123397 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2014-08-05 06:18:41 --- Comment #7 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk --- Imported and built. Thank your. -- 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 1123397] Review Request: python-bcdoc - Tools to help document botocore-based projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123397
Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com ---
Since this package complies with Fedora packaging guidelines, I hereby approve
it in Fedora packages collection. Please submit a scm request below.
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:
Apache (v2.0), Unknown or generated. 4 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/haikel/1123397-python-
bcdoc/licensecheck.txt
(there a source file: textwriter.py taken from sphinx sources under BSD 2
clauses so the results in ASL 2.0)
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 4 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 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]: 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.
[ ]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
python3-bcdoc
[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
[Bug 1123397] Review Request: python-bcdoc - Tools to help document botocore-based projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123397 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-bcdoc Short Description: Tools to help document botocore-based projects Upstream URL: https://github.com/boto/bcdoc Owners: lkundrak jtaylor Branches: f19 f20 f21 el6 epel7 -- 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 1123397] Review Request: python-bcdoc - Tools to help document botocore-based projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123397 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 1123397] Review Request: python-bcdoc - Tools to help document botocore-based projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123397 --- Comment #6 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 1123397] Review Request: python-bcdoc - Tools to help document botocore-based projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123397 --- Comment #3 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk --- Thank you. New package: SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/python-bcdoc.spec SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/python-bcdoc-0.12.2-3.el7.centos.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 1123397] Review Request: python-bcdoc - Tools to help document botocore-based projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123397 Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com --- Few minor things: * please fix the summary for the python3 subpackage ;) * bcdoc belongs to boto project which is independent from Amazon. I think that the appropriate url would be: https://github.com/boto/boto From my preliminary review, the package builds, installs and works as expected. -- 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 1123397] Review Request: python-bcdoc - Tools to help document botocore-based projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123397 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1123402 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123402 [Bug 1123402] Review Request: awscli - AWS Command Line Interface -- 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 1123397] Review Request: python-bcdoc - Tools to help document botocore-based projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123397 --- Comment #1 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk --- SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/python-bcdoc.spec SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/python-bcdoc-0.12.2-2.fc21.src.rpm Added Python 3 support. -- 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 1123397] Review Request: python-bcdoc - Tools to help document botocore-based projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123397 Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||karlthe...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|karlthe...@gmail.com -- 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
