[Bug 1279783] Review Request: python-et_xmlfile - An implementation of lxml.xmlfile for the standard library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279783



--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-et_xmlfile-1.0.1-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

-- 
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 1279783] Review Request: python-et_xmlfile - An implementation of lxml.xmlfile for the standard library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279783

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2015-12-01 12:52:12



-- 
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 1279783] Review Request: python-et_xmlfile - An implementation of lxml.xmlfile for the standard library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279783



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-et_xmlfile-1.0.1-3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

-- 
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 1279783] Review Request: python-et_xmlfile - An implementation of lxml.xmlfile for the standard library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279783

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-et_xmlfile-1.0.1-3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update python-et_xmlfile'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-995b26534b

-- 
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 1279783] Review Request: python-et_xmlfile - An implementation of lxml.xmlfile for the standard library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279783



--- Comment #2 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus)  ---
Package Review
==

Legend:
[+] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [x] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

= MUST items =

Generic:
[+]: 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
[+]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[+]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[+]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[+]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[+]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[+]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[+]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[+]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[+]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[+]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: 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.
[+]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[+]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[+]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[+]: 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 %license.
[+]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[+]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[+]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[+]: 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.
[+]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[+]: Dist tag is present.
[+]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[+]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[+]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[+]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[+]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[+]: Package is not relocatable.
[+]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[+]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[+]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[+]: 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 info.
[+]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[+]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[+]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[+]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
 python2-et_xmlfile , python3-et_xmlfile
[?]: Package functions as described.
[+]: Latest version is packaged.
[+]: 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.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Trivial test included (and may), please add:
%{__python2} setup.py test
%{__python3} setup.py test
in %check section.

[+]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[+]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[+]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[+]: Buildroot is not present
[+]: Package 

[Bug 1279783] Review Request: python-et_xmlfile - An implementation of lxml.xmlfile for the standard library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279783



--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
hubbitus's scratch build of python-et_xmlfile-1.0.1-1.fc23.src.rpm for f23
completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11946530

-- 
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 1279783] Review Request: python-et_xmlfile - An implementation of lxml.xmlfile for the standard library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279783



--- Comment #9 from Julien Enselme  ---
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 1279783] Review Request: python-et_xmlfile - An implementation of lxml.xmlfile for the standard library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279783



--- Comment #4 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus)  ---
Hm. According to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279225 it should
be, but I still do not see it for Fedora 23:
$ LANG=en_US.utf8 dnf list python3-jdcal
Last metadata expiration check performed 0:08:51 ago on Sun Nov 22 21:21:38
2015.
Error: No matching Packages to list

$ LANG=en_US.utf8 sudo dnf install python3-et_xmlfile-1.0.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
Last metadata expiration check performed 0:11:27 ago on Sun Nov 22 21:21:38
2015.
Error: nothing provides python3-jdcal needed by
python3-et_xmlfile-1.0.1-1.fc22.noarch
(try to add '--allowerasing' to command line to replace conflicting 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 1279783] Review Request: python-et_xmlfile - An implementation of lxml.xmlfile for the standard library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279783



--- Comment #5 from Julien Enselme  ---
It is still in testing for f23 (and a request has been made for stable):
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-83313fb26c

-- 
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 1279783] Review Request: python-et_xmlfile - An implementation of lxml.xmlfile for the standard library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279783



--- Comment #6 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus)  ---
I have fedora-updates-testing repo enabled.
Are you able install python3-et_xmlfile?

-- 
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 1279783] Review Request: python-et_xmlfile - An implementation of lxml.xmlfile for the standard library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279783



--- Comment #7 from Julien Enselme  ---
> Are you able install python3-et_xmlfile?

I do:


[root@giskard /home/jenselme]# dnf install
python3-et_xmlfile-1.0.1-2.fc23.noarch.rpm --enablerepo=u\*g
Last metadata expiration check performed 0:01:48 ago on Sun Nov 22 19:56:15
2015.
Dependencies resolved.

 PackageArch   VersionRepository   Size

Installing:
 python3-et_xmlfile noarch 1.0.1-2.fc23   @commandline 28 k
 python3-jdcal  noarch 1.0-1.fc23 updates-testing  16 k

Transaction Summary

Install  2 Packages

Total size: 44 k
Total download size: 16 k
Installed size: 129 k
Is this ok [y/N]: y
Downloading Packages:
python3-jdcal-1.0-1.fc23.noarch.rpm 152 kB/s |  16 kB 00:00

Total13 kB/s |  16 kB 00:01 
Running transaction check
Transaction check succeeded.
Running transaction test
Transaction test succeeded.
Running transaction
  Installing  : python3-jdcal-1.0-1.fc23.noarch 1/2 
  Installing  : python3-et_xmlfile-1.0.1-2.fc23.noarch  2/2 
  Verifying   : python3-et_xmlfile-1.0.1-2.fc23.noarch  1/2 
  Verifying   : python3-jdcal-1.0-1.fc23.noarch 2/2 

Installed:
  python3-et_xmlfile.noarch 1.0.1-2.fc23 python3-jdcal.noarch 1.0-1.fc23

Complete!

-- 
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 1279783] Review Request: python-et_xmlfile - An implementation of lxml.xmlfile for the standard library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279783

Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #8 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus)  ---
Ok, then 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 1279783] Review Request: python-et_xmlfile - An implementation of lxml.xmlfile for the standard library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279783



--- Comment #3 from Julien Enselme  ---
I just added tests as requested. As for the python3-jdcal dependency, it was
already there, wasn't it?

SPEC: http://dl.jujens.eu/SPECS/python-et_xmlfile.spec
SRPM: http://dl.jujens.eu/SRPMS/python-et_xmlfile-1.0.1-2.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 1279783] Review Request: python-et_xmlfile - An implementation of lxml.xmlfile for the standard library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279783



--- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/python-et_xmlfile

-- 
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 1279783] Review Request: python-et_xmlfile - An implementation of lxml.xmlfile for the standard library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279783



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-et_xmlfile-1.0.1-3.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-995b26534b

-- 
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 1279783] Review Request: python-et_xmlfile - An implementation of lxml.xmlfile for the standard library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279783

Fedora Update System  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 1279783] Review Request: python-et_xmlfile - An implementation of lxml.xmlfile for the standard library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279783



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-et_xmlfile-1.0.1-3.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-dee7f6c44c

-- 
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 1279783] Review Request: python-et_xmlfile - An implementation of lxml.xmlfile for the standard library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279783

Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||pa...@hubbitus.info
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pa...@hubbitus.info



-- 
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 1279783] Review Request: python-et_xmlfile - An implementation of lxml.xmlfile for the standard library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279783

Julien Enselme  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1279785




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279785
[Bug 1279785] Review Request: python-openpyxl - Python library to
read/write Excel 2010 xlsx/xlsm files
-- 
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