[Bug 806355] Review Request: python-django-profiles - A fairly simple user-profile management application for Django
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806355
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de 2012-03-24
05:00:52 EDT ---
Thank you for the comments. I can't say, why the source was wrong. corrected.
Licence corrected, License file added :oopsie:
Install file dropped.
updated SPEC: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-django-profiles.spec
updated SRPM:
http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-django-profiles-0.2-4.fc17.src.rpm
[mrunge@sofja SPECS]$ diff -u python-django-profiles.spec-3
python-django-profiles.spec
--- python-django-profiles.spec-3 2012-03-23 15:24:08.0 +0100
+++ python-django-profiles.spec 2012-03-24 09:55:38.857739255 +0100
@@ -2,10 +2,10 @@
%global obs_ver 0.2-3
Name: python-django-profiles
Version:0.2
-Release:3%{?dist}
+Release:4%{?dist}
Summary:A fairly simple user-profile management application for Django
-License:MIT
+License:BSD
URL:https://bitbucket.org/ubernostrum/%{pkgname}/
# wget https://bitbucket.org/ubernostrum/django-profiles/get/default.tar.bz2
-O django-profiles.tar.bz2
# md5sum django-profiles.tar.bz2
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@
to `django-registration`, but has no other dependencies.
%prep
-%setup -q -n ubernostrum-django-profiles-default
+%setup -q -n ubernostrum-django-profiles-c21962558420
%build
@@ -41,15 +41,18 @@
%files
-%doc CHANGELOG.txt INSTALL.txt README.txt docs/*
+%doc CHANGELOG.txt README.txt LICENSE.txt docs/*
%{python_sitelib}/profiles
%{python_sitelib}/django_profiles*
%changelog
-* Fri Mar 23 2012 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de - 0.2-3
+* Sat Mar 24 2012 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de - 0.2-4
- rename to python-django-profiles
+- fix source md5sum
+- correct License-Tag
+- add License-file
* Fri Jan 13 2012 Fedora Release Engineering rel-...@lists.fedoraproject.org
- 0.2-2
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_17_Mass_Rebuild
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- 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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 806355] Review Request: python-django-profiles - A fairly simple user-profile management application for Django
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806355 --- Comment #3 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org 2012-03-24 05:55:03 EDT --- The md5sum from the tarball in the comment is still not the same as the one we get when downloading the comment. And are you sure that you should not download the 0.2 tarball instead, as the command in comment will download the tip ( but there is no functional change ) ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 806355] Review Request: python-django-profiles - A fairly simple user-profile management application for Django
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806355
--- Comment #4 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de 2012-03-24
07:15:02 EDT ---
I'm very sorry. Double mistake! Off course, I should get the version 0.2
Later changes are just cosmetical.
SRPM:
http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-django-profiles-0.2-5.fc17.src.rpm
SPEC: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-django-profiles.spec
[mrunge@sofja SPECS]$ diff -u python-django-profiles.spec-4
python-django-profiles.spec
--- python-django-profiles.spec-4 2012-03-24 11:54:18.197209940 +0100
+++ python-django-profiles.spec 2012-03-24 12:08:30.180274641 +0100
@@ -2,14 +2,14 @@
%global obs_ver 0.2-3
Name: python-django-profiles
Version:0.2
-Release:4%{?dist}
+Release:5%{?dist}
Summary:A fairly simple user-profile management application for Django
License:BSD
URL:https://bitbucket.org/ubernostrum/%{pkgname}/
-# wget https://bitbucket.org/ubernostrum/django-profiles/get/default.tar.bz2
-O django-profiles.tar.bz2
+# wget
https://bitbucket.org/ubernostrum/django-profiles/get/daac18511394.tar.bz2 -O
django-profiles.tar.bz2
# md5sum django-profiles.tar.bz2
-# 5a94560b95f64dc3b786701647876484 django-profiles.tar.bz2
+# aba786abdb5469b64d189931e3e4b7ea django-profiles.tar.bz2
Source0:django-profiles.tar.bz2
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@
to `django-registration`, but has no other dependencies.
%prep
-%setup -q -n ubernostrum-django-profiles-c21962558420
+%setup -q -n ubernostrum-django-profiles-daac18511394
%build
@@ -48,11 +48,12 @@
%changelog
-* Sat Mar 24 2012 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de - 0.2-4
+* Sat Mar 24 2012 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de - 0.2-5
- rename to python-django-profiles
- fix source md5sum
- correct License-Tag
- add License-file
+- correct source file
* Fri Jan 13 2012 Fedora Release Engineering rel-...@lists.fedoraproject.org
- 0.2-2
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_17_Mass_Rebuild
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- 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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 806355] Review Request: python-django-profiles - A fairly simple user-profile management application for Django
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806355
Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org 2012-03-24 10:14:51 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST 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]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: No licenses found! Please check the source files for licenses
manually.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint python-django-profiles-0.2-3.fc18.src.rpm
python-django-profiles.src: W: invalid-url Source0: django-profiles.tar.bz2
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
rpmlint python-django-profiles-0.2-3.fc18.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use
[Bug 806355] Review Request: python-django-profiles - A fairly simple user-profile management application for Django
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806355 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de 2012-03-24 11:51:43 EDT --- Thank you for your review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-django-profiles Short Description: A fairly simple user-profile management application for Django Owners: mrunge Branches: devel -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 806355] Review Request: python-django-profiles - A fairly simple user-profile management application for Django
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806355 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-03-24 14:45:27 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 806355] Review Request: python-django-profiles - A fairly simple user-profile management application for Django
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806355 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-03-24 16:34:49 --- Comment #8 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de 2012-03-24 16:34:49 EDT --- imported, built, django-profiles retired, rel-eng ticket to block django-profiles from devel: https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5145 Thanks -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 806355] Review Request: python-django-profiles - A fairly simple user-profile management application for Django
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806355 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||736776 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 806355] Review Request: python-django-profiles - A fairly simple user-profile management application for Django
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806355 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@zarb.org AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.org Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org 2012-03-23 17:31:21 EDT --- Hi, a few comments : - the md5sum in the spec correspond to the one of the tarball, but the tarball it self is different from the one given by bitbucket $ LC_ALL=C wget -q https://bitbucket.org/ubernostrum/django-profiles/get/default.tar.bz2 -O django-profiles.tar.bz2 ; md5sum django-profiles.tar.bz2 2e54e3cabf0d27d71062428af72b3ef7 django-profiles.tar.bz2 So i think the instruction to download the source should be updated. - There is no license file in %doc. - The license is BSD one, not MIT, so the License tag should be updated. - I would say the file INSTALL.txt is useless, the instruction are just how to run python setup.py -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
