[Bug 1195153] Review Request: python-lmiwbem - package rename
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195153 Peter Hatina phat...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2015-03-09 04:47:54 -- 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 1195153] Review Request: python-lmiwbem - package rename
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195153 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 1195153] Review Request: python-lmiwbem - package rename
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195153 --- Comment #7 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 1195153] Review Request: python-lmiwbem - package rename
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195153 Peter Hatina phat...@redhat.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 1195153] Review Request: python-lmiwbem - package rename
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195153 Peter Hatina phat...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #6 from Peter Hatina phat...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-lmiwbem Short Description: Python WBEM Client Upstream URL: https://github.com/phatina/python-lmiwbem/ Owners: phatina Branches: f21 f22 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 1195153] Review Request: python-lmiwbem - package rename
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195153 Peter Hatina phat...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(phat...@redhat.co | |m) | --- Comment #4 from Peter Hatina phat...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://phatina.fedorapeople.org/rpms/python-lmiwbem/python-lmiwbem.spec SRPM URL: https://phatina.fedorapeople.org/rpms/python-lmiwbem/python-lmiwbem-0.7.1-1.fc23.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 1195153] Review Request: python-lmiwbem - package rename
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195153 Michal Minar mimi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Michal Minar mimi...@redhat.com --- LGTM, good work! -- 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 1195153] Review Request: python-lmiwbem - package rename
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195153
--- Comment #2 from Peter Hatina phat...@redhat.com ---
Spec URL:
https://phatina.fedorapeople.org/rpms/python-lmiwbem/python-lmiwbem.spec
SRPM URL:
https://phatina.fedorapeople.org/rpms/python-lmiwbem/python-lmiwbem-0.7.0-1.fc23.src.rpm
Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9049374
(In reply to Michal Minar from comment #1)
My findings:
* there's a new version of lmiwbem available (0.7.0) why not bundle it?
OK, done.
* moreover lmiwbem-0.6.0-2.fc22 already exists in koji
* lmiwbem.spec should be python-lmiwbem.spec
- fedora-review tool refused to run due to this
* according to [1], Obsoletes should include a release higher than the
last available release of the old package
- If I understand this correctly, it should be:
Obsoletes: lmiwbem = 0.6.0-3
Done.
* again according to [1], Provides should be listed twice - once with
%{?_isa} macro and once without:
Provides: lmiwbem = %{version}-%{release}
Provides: lmiwbem%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
Done.
rpmlint findings:
* python-lmiwbem.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
https://github.com/phatina/lmiwbem/releases/download/python-lmiwbem-0.6.0/
python-lmiwbem-0.6.0.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
According to Github and rpmlint: Tarball for 0.7.0 is accessible, via several
redirections. Rpmlint dislikes this, but this is the way, how we release new
versions of lmiwbem.
[1]
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.
2FReplacing_Existing_Packages
Thank you.
--
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 1195153] Review Request: python-lmiwbem - package rename
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195153
Michal Minar mimi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||phat...@redhat.com
Flags||needinfo?(phat...@redhat.co
||m)
--- Comment #3 from Michal Minar mimi...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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:
LGPL (v2.1 or later), GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or generated. 37
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/miminar/Downloads/python-lmiwbem/python-lmiwbem/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
*-doc package is missing LICENSE file
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-
packages/lmiwbem(lmiwbem)
[?]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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.
[?]: 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.
*-doc package is missing Provides and Obsoletes
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[?]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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 40960 bytes in 2 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
*-doc package should be noarch
[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]: 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:
[-]: 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
[Bug 1195153] Review Request: python-lmiwbem - package rename
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195153 Michal Minar mimi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mimi...@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 1195153] Review Request: python-lmiwbem - package rename
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195153
Michal Minar mimi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mimi...@redhat.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Michal Minar mimi...@redhat.com ---
My findings:
* there's a new version of lmiwbem available (0.7.0) why not bundle it?
* moreover lmiwbem-0.6.0-2.fc22 already exists in koji
* lmiwbem.spec should be python-lmiwbem.spec
- fedora-review tool refused to run due to this
* according to [1], Obsoletes should include a release higher than the last
available release of the old package
- If I understand this correctly, it should be:
Obsoletes: lmiwbem = 0.6.0-3
* again according to [1], Provides should be listed twice - once with
%{?_isa} macro and once without:
Provides: lmiwbem = %{version}-%{release}
Provides: lmiwbem%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
rpmlint findings:
* python-lmiwbem.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
https://github.com/phatina/lmiwbem/releases/download/python-lmiwbem-0.6.0/python-lmiwbem-0.6.0.tar.gz
HTTP Error 404: Not Found
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
[1]
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_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
