[Bug 1327635] Review Request: openstack-congress - OpenStack Congress Service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327635
Bug 1327635 depends on bug 1418855, which changed state.

Bug 1418855 Summary: Review Request: python-PuLP - LP modeler written in python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418855

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1327635] Review Request: openstack-congress - OpenStack Congress Service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327635

Javier Peña  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
Last Closed||2017-02-08 12:27:30



--- Comment #18 from Javier Peña  ---
openstack-congress builds are now in the RDO Trunk repos.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1327635] Review Request: openstack-congress - OpenStack Congress Service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327635

Javier Peña  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|POST
   Assignee|dra...@redhat.com   |jp...@redhat.com
  Flags||rdo-review+



--- Comment #17 from Javier Peña  ---
- The SRPM differences with the spec are expected, since it's generated by
DLRN. Same goes for the tarball not being downloadable.

The package is APPROVED.

Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Dist tag is present.


= 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Apache", "BSD (3 clause)",
 "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 388 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/congress
 /review-openstack-congress/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/share/openstack-dashboard, /usr/share
 /openstack-dashboard/openstack_dashboard/local/enabled, /etc
 /openstack-dashboard/enabled, /usr/share/openstack-
 dashboard/openstack_dashboard, /usr/share/openstack-
 dashboard/openstack_dashboard/local, /etc/openstack-dashboard
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/openstack-
 dashboard/openstack_dashboard/local/enabled, /usr/share/openstack-
 dashboard/openstack_dashboard/local, /etc/openstack-dashboard/enabled,
 /usr/share/openstack-dashboard/openstack_dashboard, /etc/logrotate.d,
 /usr/share/openstack-dashboard, /etc/openstack-dashboard
[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.
[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.
[x]: 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 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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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:

[Bug 1327635] Review Request: openstack-congress - OpenStack Congress Service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327635



--- Comment #16 from Javier Peña  ---
After another update:

- Spec:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rdo-packages/congress-distgit/rpm-master/openstack-congress.spec
- SRPM:
http://46.231.132.68:8080/v1/AUTH_b50e80d3969f441a8b7b1fe831003e0a/rdoartifacts/31/4931/1/gate/DLRN-rpmbuild/Z884f0394d23d49b5a05306f7d196382c/artifacts/centos/repos/54/92/54926c44114800c0112099d57e04f209191737ba_dev/openstack-congress-5.0.0-0.20170207183957.54926c4.el7.centos.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1327635] Review Request: openstack-congress - OpenStack Congress Service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327635



--- Comment #15 from Javier Peña  ---
Updated files:

- Spec:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rdo-packages/congress-distgit/rpm-master/openstack-congress.spec
- SRPM:
http://46.231.132.68:8080/v1/AUTH_b50e80d3969f441a8b7b1fe831003e0a/rdoartifacts/19/4919/1/gate/DLRN-rpmbuild/Ze0ae6236ab8c486e96c3212c0ecaeaee/artifacts/centos/repos/54/92/54926c44114800c0112099d57e04f209191737ba_dev/openstack-congress-5.0.0-0.20170207164344.54926c4.el7.centos.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1327635] Review Request: openstack-congress - OpenStack Congress Service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327635

Alan Pevec  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(dra...@redhat.com |
   |)   |



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1327635] Review Request: openstack-congress - OpenStack Congress Service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327635



--- Comment #14 from Javier Peña  ---
Spec file reviewed in Gerrit:

- Spec:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rdo-packages/congress-distgit/rpm-master/openstack-congress.spec
- SRPM:
http://46.231.132.68:8080/v1/AUTH_b50e80d3969f441a8b7b1fe831003e0a/rdoartifacts/87/4487/18/gate/DLRN-rpmbuild/Z4d6981303c434c9fac204f8130ce2b67/artifacts/centos/repos/54/92/54926c44114800c0112099d57e04f209191737ba_dev/openstack-congress-5.0.0-0.20170207085032.54926c4.el7.centos.src.rpm

Remember that the SRPM has been generated by DLRN, so some differences in the
spec are expected when running fedora-review.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1327635] Review Request: openstack-congress - OpenStack Congress Service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327635

Alan Pevec  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On|1373821 |




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1373821
[Bug 1373821] Review Request: python-pulp - LP modeler written in python
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1327635] Review Request: openstack-congress - OpenStack Congress Service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327635

Alan Pevec  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ape...@gmail.com
  Flags||needinfo?(dra...@redhat.com
   ||)



--- Comment #13 from Alan Pevec  ---
Dan, python-PuLP is now available in openstack-common see bug 1418855 for
details. You can proceed with this review.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1327635] Review Request: openstack-congress - OpenStack Congress Service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327635

Alan Pevec  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On|1407000 |




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1407000
[Bug 1407000] Review Request: python-PuLP - LP modeler written in python
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1327635] Review Request: openstack-congress - OpenStack Congress Service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327635

Alan Pevec  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1418855




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418855
[Bug 1418855] Review Request: python-PuLP - LP modeler written in python
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1327635] Review Request: openstack-congress - OpenStack Congress Service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327635

Dan Radez  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1407000




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1407000
[Bug 1407000] Review Request: python-pulp - LP modeler written in python
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1327635] Review Request: openstack-congress - OpenStack Congress Service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327635
Bug 1327635 depends on bug 1373821, which changed state.

Bug 1373821 Summary: Review Request: python-pulp - LP modeler written in python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1373821

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1327635] Review Request: openstack-congress - OpenStack Congress Service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327635

Dan Radez  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|jp...@redhat.com|dra...@redhat.com



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1327635] Review Request: openstack-congress - OpenStack Congress Service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327635



--- Comment #12 from Dan Radez  ---
I'll pick this up and move it forward

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1327635] Review Request: openstack-congress - OpenStack Congress Service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327635



--- Comment #11 from Haïkel Guémar  ---
Review stalled until someone else pick it up

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1327635] Review Request: openstack-congress - OpenStack Congress Service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327635

Marcos  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1373821




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1373821
[Bug 1373821] Review Request: python-pulp - LP modeler written in python
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1327635] Review Request: openstack-congress - OpenStack Congress Service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327635

Javier Peña  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(jp...@redhat.com) |



--- Comment #10 from Javier Peña  ---
Hi Marcos,

fedora-review (see report below) is complaining about a couple items:

- We need to add some Requires for the systemd commands we include in %post and
other sections, you can use
https://github.com/openstack-packages/openstack-example-spec/blob/master/openstack-example.spec#L30-L33
as an example

- There is a pulp-rpm requirement, which I guess is coming from the usage of a
library called PuLP (https://pypi.python.org/pypi/PuLP/1.6.1). I haven't found
a package for this, we need to package it.

- Also, I see the spec uses the Mitaka congress version, we should update it to
the Newton one (after we get PuLP packaged).

-

Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
- Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
  Note: Binary egg files not removed in %prep:
 
./thirdparty/antlr3-antlr-3.5/runtime/Python/dist/antlr_python_runtime-3.4-py2.4.egg
 
./thirdparty/antlr3-antlr-3.5/runtime/Python/dist/antlr_python_runtime-3.4-py2.6.egg
  See:
 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Packaging_eggs_and_setuptools_concerns


= 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "BSD (3 clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)",
 "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 542 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/congress
 /review-openstack-congress/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/systemd/system,
 /etc/logrotate.d, /usr/lib/systemd
[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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: 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 20480 bytes in 1 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]: 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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is 

[Bug 1327635] Review Request: openstack-congress - OpenStack Congress Service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327635

Marcos  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(jp...@redhat.com)



--- Comment #9 from Marcos  ---
Hi Javier,

I think I addressed all your comments.

Please, check again the SPEC file and the SRPM

SPEC file:
https://github.com/marcosflobo/package_review/blob/master/openstack-congress/3.0.0/openstack-congress.spec
SRPM:
https://github.com/marcosflobo/package_review/raw/master/openstack-congress/3.0.0/openstack-congress-3.0.0-1.fc24.src.rpm


Successful scratch http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15503499

Thanks for your review.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1327635] Review Request: openstack-congress - OpenStack Congress Service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327635

Javier Peña  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
  Flags|needinfo?(jp...@redhat.com) |



--- Comment #8 from Javier Peña  ---
Hi Marcos,

Thanks for the changes. There are some minor changes needed:

- The %post, %preun and %postun sections require a line for the
openstack-congress-db-manage.service
- Please include the license in the -doc subpackage. It can be installed
independently of openstack-congress and python-congress, thus it should include
it.

And some nits:

- The BR for python2-oslo-config does not include the Epoch (the Requires:
does)
- In the oslo-config-generator section, the comment mentions Heat

With that, and pending anything from fedora-review, we should be good to go.

Thanks!

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1327635] Review Request: openstack-congress - OpenStack Congress Service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327635

Marcos  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(jp...@redhat.com)



--- Comment #7 from Marcos  ---
Hi Javier,

- I changed it to python-congress
- I added the epoch, please verify. Thanks for your clues

Please, check again the SPEC file and the SRPM

SPEC file:
ttps://raw.githubusercontent.com/marcosflobo/package_review/master/openstack-congress/3.0.0/openstack-congress.spec
SRPM:
https://github.com/marcosflobo/package_review/raw/master/openstack-congress/3.0.0/openstack-congress-3.0.0-1.fc24.src.rpm

Successful scratch http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15470144

Thank you

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1327635] Review Request: openstack-congress - OpenStack Congress Service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327635

Javier Peña  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(jp...@redhat.com) |



--- Comment #6 from Javier Peña  ---
Hi Marcos,

If we don't have a python3 subpackage, I would prefer to use python-congress
for the main package.

About the proper epoch, the easiest way would be to query the RDO Trunk repo.
Just get delorean.repo from
https://trunk.rdoproject.org/centos70/current/delorean.repo into
/etc/yum.repos.d, then run:

repoquery -a --nevra --repoid=delorean

That command will show the name, epoch (before the :) and version-release for
every package in the repo.

Once you've updated the spec, please provide links to both spec and srpm, that
simplifies the job for fedora-review. Thanks!

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1327635] Review Request: openstack-congress - OpenStack Congress Service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327635

Marcos  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(l...@lukos.org)   |needinfo?(jp...@redhat.com)



--- Comment #5 from Marcos  ---
Hi Javier,

- Removed all the python3 because I'm not sure if Congress supports python3
- I added python-congress to the main package. Should be python2-congress or
python-congress?
- How do I know the proper epoch for those packages? In the requirements there
is nothing about that
https://github.com/openstack/congress/blob/master/requirements.txt
- %post, %preun and %postun sections added. Thanks for the link.
- I replaced by %py2*

Please, check again the SPEC file here:

SPEC file:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/marcosflobo/package_review/master/openstack-congress/3.0.0/openstack-congress.spec

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1327635] Review Request: openstack-congress - OpenStack Congress Service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327635

Alan Pevec  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ape...@redhat.com,
   ||l...@lukos.org
  Flags|needinfo?(karlthered@gmail. |needinfo?(l...@lukos.org)
   |com)|
   |needinfo?(karlthered@gmail. |
   |com)|



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1327635] Review Request: openstack-congress - OpenStack Congress Service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327635



--- Comment #4 from Javier Peña  ---
Hi Marcos,

Sorry for the delayed review. I have some comments about the spec:

- We have not started creating Python3 subpackages for services yet. If
Congress is Python3-compatible, I think it's ok to keep the python3 subpkg in
the spec file, but it's not going to be built on CentOS.
- The main package (openstack-congress) should require python-congress,
otherwise we'll have to install both manually.
- Please move the python-* requires from the main package to the
python2-congress subpackage.
- Some packages (python-oslo-config, python-glanceclient, python-novaclient,
python-keystoneclient) have an Epoch, please add it to the version requirement.
- You're missing the %post, %preun and %postun sections for the services. You
can use
https://github.com/openstack-packages/openstack-example-spec/blob/master/openstack-example.spec#L147-L154
as an example.
- You can use %py2_build, %py2_install and their py3 equivalents instead of a
longer command line.

Also, I guess the spec will have to be updated for the Newton release of
Congress.

Thanks!

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1327635] Review Request: openstack-congress - OpenStack Congress Service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327635

Javier Peña  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|karlthe...@gmail.com|jp...@redhat.com
 QA Contact|extras...@fedoraproject.org |jp...@redhat.com



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1327635] Review Request: openstack-congress - OpenStack Congress Service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327635

Javier Peña  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Target Release|--- |trunk
 CC||jp...@redhat.com
  Component|Package Review  |Package Review
Version|rawhide |trunk
Product|Fedora  |RDO
   Target Milestone|--- |GA



--- Comment #3 from Javier Peña  ---
I'm changing the product to RDO. We are not packaging services in Fedora
directly, but as part of the RDO project.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1327635] Review Request: openstack-congress - OpenStack Congress Service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327635

Alan Pevec  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1329341 (RDO-NEWTON)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329341
[Bug 1329341] Tracker: Blockers and Review requests for new RDO Newton
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1327635] Review Request: openstack-congress - OpenStack Congress Service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327635

Marcos  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(karlthered@gmail.
   ||com)



--- Comment #2 from Marcos  ---
Problem with python-oslo-config was solved. Now, the unsuccessful scratch is
due to "Sorry: TabError: inconsistent use of tabs and spaces in indentation"

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13992067 -> build.log

-- 
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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1327635] Review Request: openstack-congress - OpenStack Congress Service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327635

Marcos  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||karlthe...@gmail.com
  Flags||needinfo?(karlthered@gmail.
   ||com)



--- Comment #1 from Marcos  ---
There is not successful scratch because python-olso-config version. See here
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13670962

-- 
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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1327635] Review Request: openstack-congress - OpenStack Congress Service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327635

Marcos  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|karlthe...@gmail.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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org