[Bug 1295126] Review Request: python-guzzle_sphinx_theme - Sphinx theme used by Guzzle

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295126

Antonio Trande  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|anto.tra...@gmail.com   |nob...@fedoraproject.org



-- 
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 1295126] Review Request: python-guzzle_sphinx_theme - Sphinx theme used by Guzzle

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295126

Antonio Trande  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
 Whiteboard||AwaitingSubmitter
  Flags|fedora-review?  |
   |needinfo?(fa...@locati.cc)  |



--- Comment #2 from Antonio Trande  ---
Review stalled.

-- 
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 1295126] Review Request: python-guzzle_sphinx_theme - Sphinx theme used by Guzzle

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295126

Antonio Trande  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||fa...@locati.cc
  Flags||needinfo?(fa...@locati.cc)



-- 
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 1295126] Review Request: python-guzzle_sphinx_theme - Sphinx theme used by Guzzle

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295126

Antonio Trande  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|anto.tra...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



-- 
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 1295126] Review Request: python-guzzle_sphinx_theme - Sphinx theme used by Guzzle

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295126



--- Comment #1 from Antonio Trande  ---
- Move Python3 BuildRequires packages inside python3-%{pypi_name}

- %doc
guzzle_sphinx_theme/guzzle_sphinx_theme/static/fonts/source-serif-pro/ReadMe.html
guzzle_sphinx_theme/guzzle_sphinx_theme/static/fonts/source-serif-pro/README.md
guzzle_sphinx_theme/guzzle_sphinx_theme/static/fonts/source-serif-pro/SourceSerifProReadMe.html
README.rst
guzzle_sphinx_theme/guzzle_sphinx_theme/static/fonts/source-serif-pro/LICENSE.txt

Better:

%doc
guzzle_sphinx_theme/guzzle_sphinx_theme/static/fonts/source-serif-pro/*[ReadMe,README].*
%license
guzzle_sphinx_theme/guzzle_sphinx_theme/static/fonts/source-serif-pro/LICENSE.txt

- This package provides fonts released with OFL license.
  Please, update License.

- Fix rpmlint errors and warnings.

- Python macro difinitions is necessary only in EPEL6
  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#Python
Probably in future you will be able to build this package
in EPEL7 too.

https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/567

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 %license.
  Note: License file LICENSE.txt is marked as %doc instead of %license
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text


= 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
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 104 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/sagitter/1295126-python-guzzle_sphinx_theme/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages,
 /usr/lib/python3.5
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.5/site-
 packages, /usr/lib/python3.5
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.

This package provides a little font file already packaged in Fedora
(glyphicons-halflings-fonts): glyphicons-halflings-regular.ttf

[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.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.

See above.

[!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.

See my notes.

[-]: 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 81920 bytes in 10 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]: Dist tag is present.
[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 does not use a name that already exists.
[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