[Bug 1297234] Review Request: python-astropy-helpers - Utilities for building and installing Astropy and Astropy affiliated packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297234



--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-astropy-helpers-1.1.1-1.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 1297234] Review Request: python-astropy-helpers - Utilities for building and installing Astropy and Astropy affiliated packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297234



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-astropy-helpers-1.1.1-1.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 1297234] Review Request: python-astropy-helpers - Utilities for building and installing Astropy and Astropy affiliated packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297234

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-02-16 22:51:54



-- 
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 1297234] Review Request: python-astropy-helpers - Utilities for building and installing Astropy and Astropy affiliated packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297234

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|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 1297234] Review Request: python-astropy-helpers - Utilities for building and installing Astropy and Astropy affiliated packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297234



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-astropy-helpers-1.1.1-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora
23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-39aab2

-- 
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 1297234] Review Request: python-astropy-helpers - Utilities for building and installing Astropy and Astropy affiliated packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297234



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-astropy-helpers-1.1.1-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora
22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-4622161117

-- 
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 1297234] Review Request: python-astropy-helpers - Utilities for building and installing Astropy and Astropy affiliated packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297234

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-astropy-helpers-1.1.1-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-4622161117

-- 
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 1297234] Review Request: python-astropy-helpers - Utilities for building and installing Astropy and Astropy affiliated packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297234



--- Comment #11 from Christian Dersch  ---
Thank you very much :)

-- 
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 1297234] Review Request: python-astropy-helpers - Utilities for building and installing Astropy and Astropy affiliated packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297234



--- Comment #9 from Christian Dersch  ---
Thank you for reviewing :) Requires are correct, astropy-helpers is a package
enhancing sphinx, setuptools etc., so these are also runtime requires (and are
checked at buildtime).

@Rpmlint messages: These are not devel files, looks like they are shipped by
mistake. I'll ask upstream to fix this.

-- 
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 1297234] Review Request: python-astropy-helpers - Utilities for building and installing Astropy and Astropy affiliated packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297234

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|POST
  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #10 from Raphael Groner  ---
Requires are explained and justification is valid. Though, maybe add comments
into spec file.

Rpmlint suggestions are recognized and fix is promised.

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 1297234] Review Request: python-astropy-helpers - Utilities for building and installing Astropy and Astropy affiliated packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297234



--- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/python-astropy-helpers

-- 
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 1297234] Review Request: python-astropy-helpers - Utilities for building and installing Astropy and Astropy affiliated packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297234



--- Comment #8 from Raphael Groner  ---
Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



= 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". 56 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/builder/fedora-review/1297234-python-
 astropy-helpers/licensecheck.txt
=> New BSD (no advertising, 3 clause) 

[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[?]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages,
 /usr/lib/python3.5
=> Both folders are owned in python3-libs. Maybe a bug.

[?]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.5/site-
 packages, /usr/lib/python3.5
[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
=> see below for rpmlint

[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.
=> Where do you run sphinx? Notice that python3-sphinx uses different and
   suffixed command: sphinx-build-3 vs. sphinx-build
=> Please remove setuptools from runtime. Is there any use case?

[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 40960 bytes in 4 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]: 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.
[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
 %{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.
[x]: 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.
[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 python2
 -astropy-helpers , python3-astropy-helpers
=> Empty main package, ignore.

[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.

[Bug 1297234] Review Request: python-astropy-helpers - Utilities for building and installing Astropy and Astropy affiliated packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297234

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||projects...@smart.ms
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|projects...@smart.ms
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #7 from Raphael Groner  ---
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 1297234] Review Request: python-astropy-helpers - Utilities for building and installing Astropy and Astropy affiliated packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297234



--- Comment #3 from Christian Dersch  ---
Added tests, replaced spec and src.rpm in place.

-- 
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 1297234] Review Request: python-astropy-helpers - Utilities for building and installing Astropy and Astropy affiliated packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297234



--- Comment #6 from Yanis Guenane  ---
I do see it now. Sorry for the noise.

Looks good to me.

-- 
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 1297234] Review Request: python-astropy-helpers - Utilities for building and installing Astropy and Astropy affiliated packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297234



--- Comment #4 from Yanis Guenane  ---
You're right it was the main astropy git repo. My bad.

Thanks for adding the %doc stanza.
Also you said you added tests but I still don't see any %check on the .spec,
anything I am missing ? Else LGTM.

-- 
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 1297234] Review Request: python-astropy-helpers - Utilities for building and installing Astropy and Astropy affiliated packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297234



--- Comment #5 from Christian Dersch  ---
Maybe browser cache? I get it with tests.

-- 
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 1297234] Review Request: python-astropy-helpers - Utilities for building and installing Astropy and Astropy affiliated packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297234



--- Comment #2 from Christian Dersch  ---
Thank you for commenting this. The upstream git you mentioned is astropy itself
(which we already have in Fedora). So: No docs (because there are no docs in
upstream tarball). Same for the doc files README, CHANGES and CONTRIBUTING.
They are not part of the tar of astropy-helpers.

I'll have a look at the tests.

-- 
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 1297234] Review Request: python-astropy-helpers - Utilities for building and installing Astropy and Astropy affiliated packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297234

Yanis Guenane  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||yguen...@redhat.com



--- Comment #1 from Yanis Guenane  ---
My review is yet unofficial as I am not part of the packager group.

Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

= Issues =

> [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
> (~1MB) or number of files.

Maybe the docs/ folder at https://github.com/astropy/astropy/tree/master/docs
could have its own subpackage -doc

> [ ]: %check is present and all tests pas

The upstream project provide tests. Anything that prevent running them here ?


Also, upstream provides README, CHANGES and CONTRIBUTING files that would fit
in a %doc.

= 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: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 73 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/packager/review-
 python-astropy-helpers/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: 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 40960 bytes in 4 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]: 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.
[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]: 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
 %{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 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 

[Bug 1297234] Review Request: python-astropy-helpers - Utilities for building and installing Astropy and Astropy affiliated packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297234

Christian Dersch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||115 (Astronomy-SIG)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=115
[Bug 115] Astronomy 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