[Bug 1194576] Review Request:python-docx - Lib for creating/updating docx files [FE-NEEDSPONSOR]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194576 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(zbys...@in.waw.pl | |) | -- 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 1194576] Review Request:python-docx - Lib for creating/updating docx files [FE-NEEDSPONSOR]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194576
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl
--- Comment #5 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl ---
%{name} is already defined Name. So %{pkg_name} can probably be removed.
There's no need to use %{py3dir}. This was a kludge sometimes necessary because
of 2to3 translations. But this package does not seem to use it, and Python3
uses __pycache__ and different .so names, so you can just build and install
from the same source directory. This will simplify the spec file a bit.
Very nice and clean packaging.
--
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 1194576] Review Request:python-docx - Lib for creating/updating docx files [FE-NEEDSPONSOR]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194576 Christian Dersch lupi...@mailbox.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lupi...@mailbox.org Flags||needinfo?(zbys...@in.waw.pl ||) --- Comment #6 from Christian Dersch lupi...@mailbox.org --- @Zbigniew: Are you performing a review here? Otherwise I'll take the 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 1194576] Review Request:python-docx - Lib for creating/updating docx files [FE-NEEDSPONSOR]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194576 --- Comment #7 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- I wasn't going to do a full review, since I'm not a packager sponsor. You can take it. -- 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 1194576] Review Request:python-docx - Lib for creating/updating docx files [FE-NEEDSPONSOR]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194576 --- Comment #11 from Kushal Khandelwal (kushalk124) kushal...@gmail.com --- @Zbigniew and @Christian, thank your for the review and your kind comments. I have made the necessary changes. Please have a look :) SPEC: https://kushal124.fedorapeople.org/python-docx.spec SRPM: https://kushal124.fedorapeople.org/python-docx-0.8.5-1.fc20.src.rpm koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9185045 Thanks :) -- 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 1194576] Review Request:python-docx - Lib for creating/updating docx files [FE-NEEDSPONSOR]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194576 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Depends On|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- 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 1194576] Review Request:python-docx - Lib for creating/updating docx files [FE-NEEDSPONSOR]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194576 Christian Dersch lupi...@mailbox.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Christian Dersch lupi...@mailbox.org --- Looks fine now :) Solution: Approved! So after finding a sponsor you can import the 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 1194576] Review Request:python-docx - Lib for creating/updating docx files [FE-NEEDSPONSOR]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194576 Christian Dersch lupi...@mailbox.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lupi...@mailbox.org Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #8 from Christian Dersch lupi...@mailbox.org --- Taken :) -- 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 1194576] Review Request:python-docx - Lib for creating/updating docx files [FE-NEEDSPONSOR]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194576 --- Comment #10 from Christian Dersch lupi...@mailbox.org --- Note: I did the review using Fedora 22 as rawhide has some problems here (independent from the package) leading to a mock fail. -- 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 1194576] Review Request:python-docx - Lib for creating/updating docx files [FE-NEEDSPONSOR]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194576
--- Comment #9 from Christian Dersch lupi...@mailbox.org ---
Review done :) Package looks good, but it needs some fixes:
* Package latest version 0.8.5
* Fix the Changelog in spec
* Remove the unnecessary macro pkg_name is mentioned by Zbigniew (not a must)
* You need a sponsor
Greetings,
Christian
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- 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.
Note: Cannot find LICENSE in rpm(s)
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
* False positive, package uses %license macro which is fine and recommended
for new packages
= 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. 245 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in /home/review/1194576-python-docx/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
* Changelog misses version 0.8.4
[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).
* As already mentioned: pkg_name macro is not neccessary
[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.
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Note: Test run failed
[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]: 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.
Python:
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
[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
= 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
python3-docx
[x]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
* Upstream released 0.8.5 some days ago,
[Bug 1194576] Review Request:python-docx - Lib for creating/updating docx files [FE-NEEDSPONSOR]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194576 --- Comment #4 from Kushal Khandelwal (kushalk124) kushal...@gmail.com --- To have a good understanding of Packaging Guidelines , did these unofficial reviews : bz#1143032 and bz#1181927 -- 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 1194576] Review Request:python-docx - Lib for creating/updating docx files [FE-NEEDSPONSOR]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194576
--- Comment #3 from Kushal kushal...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- 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.
Note: Cannot find LICENSE in rpm(s)
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
= 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.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 226 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in /home/kushal/package-review-test/1194576-python-
docx/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/licenses
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/licenses
[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
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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 20480 bytes in 2 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]: 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.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
python3-docx
[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.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: Packages should try to preserve
[Bug 1194576] Review Request:python-docx - Lib for creating/updating docx files [FE-NEEDSPONSOR]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194576 --- Comment #2 from Kushal kushal...@gmail.com --- -Fixed the issue with tests at upstream. -Bumped to new version -Added python3 packaging SRPM : https://kushal124.fedorapeople.org/python-docx-0.8.4-1.fc20.src.rpm SPEC : https://kushal124.fedorapeople.org/python-docx.spec Koji : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9017642 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9017648 -- 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 1194576] Review Request:python-docx - Lib for creating/updating docx files [FE-NEEDSPONSOR]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194576 Kushal kushal...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||100 (ML-SIG) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=100 [Bug 100] Machine Learning SIG - review tracker -- 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 1194576] Review Request:python-docx - Lib for creating/updating docx files [FE-NEEDSPONSOR]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194576 Kushal kushal...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- 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 1194576] Review Request:python-docx - Lib for creating/updating docx files [FE-NEEDSPONSOR]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194576 --- Comment #1 from Kushal kushal...@gmail.com --- Updated the spec file to fix tests. New koji build : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9009221 -- 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
