[Bug 1139066] Review Request: jbrout - Photo manager, written in python/pygtk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1139066 Matěj Cepl mc...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2014-10-23 14:27:09 --- Comment #11 from Matěj Cepl mc...@redhat.com --- This should be closed a long time ago. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=6382 -- 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 1139066] Review Request: jbrout - Photo manager, written in python/pygtk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1139066 Matěj Cepl mc...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Matěj Cepl mc...@redhat.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: jbrout New Branches: f21 epel7 Owners: mcepl 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 1139066] Review Request: jbrout - Photo manager, written in python/pygtk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1139066 Matěj Cepl mc...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|d...@der-flo.net |mc...@redhat.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
[Bug 1139066] Review Request: jbrout - Photo manager, written in python/pygtk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1139066 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 1139066] Review Request: jbrout - Photo manager, written in python/pygtk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1139066 --- Comment #10 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 1139066] Review Request: jbrout - Photo manager, written in python/pygtk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1139066 Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net --- hi Matěj! It looks fine, so I approve it. Cheers, Flo For the records: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7708167 -- 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 1139066] Review Request: jbrout - Photo manager, written in python/pygtk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1139066
--- Comment #4 from Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
- Package do not use a name that already exist
Note: A package already exist with this name, please check
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/jbrout
See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names
= 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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: 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.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
--- see listed issue above and output of rpmlint
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: 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 30720 bytes in 1 files.
[!]: 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]: 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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
[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 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.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
--- see listed issue above and output of rpmlint
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
--- ok for this package
[-]: 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]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: 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.
[Bug 1139066] Review Request: jbrout - Photo manager, written in python/pygtk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1139066 --- Comment #5 from Matěj Cepl mc...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Florian der-flo Lehner from comment #4) Issues: === - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel I don’t understand what’s the problem. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python says: To build a package containing python2 files, you need to have BuildRequires: python2-devel Similarly, when building a package which ships python3 files, you need BuildRequires: python3-devel A package that has both python2 and python3 files will need to BuildRequire both. What’s wrong with it? - Package do not use a name that already exist Note: A package already exist with this name, please check https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/jbrout This is a revival of once killed package. I am the owner of jbrout package. -- 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 1139066] Review Request: jbrout - Photo manager, written in python/pygtk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1139066 --- Comment #6 from Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net --- hi Matěj! You listed python2-devel in Requires. Please move it to BuildRequires. This is a revival of once killed package. I am the owner of jbrout package. I've noticed that you are the package owner. So this is not a blocker. Cheers, Flo -- 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 1139066] Review Request: jbrout - Photo manager, written in python/pygtk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1139066 --- Comment #7 from Matěj Cepl mc...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Florian der-flo Lehner from comment #6) hi Matěj! You listed python2-devel in Requires. Please move it to BuildRequires. D'OH http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/tmp/jbrout-0.3.338-0.12.svn338.fc21.src.rpm http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/tmp/jbrout.spec Builds in koji http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7707013 -- 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 1139066] Review Request: jbrout - Photo manager, written in python/pygtk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1139066 --- Comment #2 from Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net --- hi Matěj! Are you still interessted in a review? Cheers, Florian -- 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 1139066] Review Request: jbrout - Photo manager, written in python/pygtk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1139066 --- Comment #3 from Matěj Cepl mc...@redhat.com --- Surely, I have: New src.rpm is http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/tmp/jbrout-0.3.338-0.11.svn338.el7.src.rpm and SPEC file http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/tmp/jbrout.spec -- 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 1139066] Review Request: jbrout - Photo manager, written in python/pygtk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1139066
Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||d...@der-flo.net
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|d...@der-flo.net
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net ---
hi Matěj!
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
[ ] Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[ ] Package do not use a name that already exist
Note: A package already exist with this name, please check
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/jbrout
See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names
--- Do you want to retire it?
[ ] Please remove the ls in %build
[ ] You missed to add your changes in the %changelog
[ ] From lint:
jbrout.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/jbrout/jbrout/pyexiv.py.noPyexiv2Warn 0644L /usr/bin/env
= 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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later), GPL (v2), Unknown or generated.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: 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).
[!]: 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 30720 bytes in 1 files.
[!]: 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]: 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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
[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 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]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query
