[Bug 865535] Review Request: python-datanommer-models - SQLAlchemy models for datanommer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865535 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|ERRATA |CURRENTRELEASE -- 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 865535] Review Request: python-datanommer-models - SQLAlchemy models for datanommer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865535 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-datanommer-models-0.2.0-6.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- 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 865535] Review Request: python-datanommer-models - SQLAlchemy models for datanommer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865535 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- datanommer-0.2.0-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865535] Review Request: python-datanommer-models - SQLAlchemy models for datanommer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865535 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-datanommer-models-0.2.0-6.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- 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 865535] Review Request: python-datanommer-models - SQLAlchemy models for datanommer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865535 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-datanommer-models-0.2.0-6.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- 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 865535] Review Request: python-datanommer-models - SQLAlchemy models for datanommer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865535 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- datanommer-0.2.0-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865535] Review Request: python-datanommer-models - SQLAlchemy models for datanommer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865535 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- datanommer-0.2.0-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/datanommer-0.2.0-2.fc18 -- 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 865535] Review Request: python-datanommer-models - SQLAlchemy models for datanommer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865535 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- datanommer-0.2.0-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/datanommer-0.2.0-2.fc17 -- 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 865535] Review Request: python-datanommer-models - SQLAlchemy models for datanommer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865535 Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-11-09 09:19:56 -- 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 865535] Review Request: python-datanommer-models - SQLAlchemy models for datanommer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865535 --- Comment #9 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- I will! (just have to wait on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865536 and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865538 ) :) Thanks Mario! -- 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 865535] Review Request: python-datanommer-models - SQLAlchemy models for datanommer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865535 Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-datanommer-models Short Description: SQLAlchemy models for datanommer Owners: ralph Branches: f18 f17 el6 InitialCC: -- 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 865535] Review Request: python-datanommer-models - SQLAlchemy models for datanommer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865535 --- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 865535] Review Request: python-datanommer-models - SQLAlchemy models for datanommer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865535 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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 865535] Review Request: python-datanommer-models - SQLAlchemy models for datanommer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865535 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-datanommer-models-0.2.0-6.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-datanommer-models-0.2.0-6.el6 -- 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 865535] Review Request: python-datanommer-models - SQLAlchemy models for datanommer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865535 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-datanommer-models-0.2.0-6.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-datanommer-models-0.2.0-6.fc18 -- 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 865535] Review Request: python-datanommer-models - SQLAlchemy models for datanommer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865535 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-datanommer-models-0.2.0-6.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-datanommer-models-0.2.0-6.fc17 -- 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 865535] Review Request: python-datanommer-models - SQLAlchemy models for datanommer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865535 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- 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 865535] Review Request: python-datanommer-models - SQLAlchemy models for datanommer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865535 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-datanommer-models-0.2.0-6.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- 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 865535] Review Request: python-datanommer-models - SQLAlchemy models for datanommer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865535
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Mario, I thought I wrote a note to the list but it must have gotten lost in
the tubes.. perhaps queued for moderation?
Either way, do you think my removal of the explicit Conflicts tag is
acceptable?
I think it's OK. Well, not really canonical, but I hope you will deprecate
datanommer in the foreseeable future ;)
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4663561
$ rpmlint -i -v *
python-datanommer-models.src: I: checking
python-datanommer-models.src: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/pypi/datanommer.models (timeout 10 seconds)
python-datanommer-models.src: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/d/datanommer.models/datanommer.models-0.2.0.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
python-datanommer-models.noarch: I: checking
python-datanommer-models.noarch: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/pypi/datanommer.models (timeout 10 seconds)
python-datanommer-models.spec: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/d/datanommer.models/datanommer.models-0.2.0.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
No issues.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
GPLv3+
[+] 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 must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
$ sha256sum *
57f9486bea0c3854e6ca8dbdb454737bff6ab54083f1264795eacab6bd527d33
datanommer.models-0.2.0.tar.gz
57f9486bea0c3854e6ca8dbdb454737bff6ab54083f1264795eacab6bd527d33
datanommer.models-0.2.0.tar.gz.orig
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[.] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable
[Bug 865535] Review Request: python-datanommer-models - SQLAlchemy models for datanommer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865535 --- Comment #7 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- Mario, I thought I wrote a note to the list but it must have gotten lost in the tubes.. perhaps queued for moderation? Either way, do you think my removal of the explicit Conflicts tag is acceptable? -- 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 865535] Review Request: python-datanommer-models - SQLAlchemy models for datanommer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865535 --- Comment #6 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- New release removes Conflicts tag with the old datanommer. Rely on the implicit file conflict instead of an explicit versioned package conflict. Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-datanommer-models.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-datanommer-models-0.2.0-4.fc18.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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865535] Review Request: python-datanommer-models - SQLAlchemy models for datanommer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865535 --- Comment #5 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- @Ralph, there's a thread in the packaging mailing list about this review [1]. Please have a look at it. [1] http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2012-October/008710.html -- 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 865535] Review Request: python-datanommer-models - SQLAlchemy models for datanommer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865535
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4585874
$ rpmlint -i -v *
python-datanommer-models.src: I: checking
python-datanommer-models.src: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/pypi/datanommer.models (timeout 10 seconds)
python-datanommer-models.src: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/d/datanommer.models/datanommer.models-0.2.0.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
python-datanommer-models.noarch: I: checking
python-datanommer-models.noarch: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/pypi/datanommer.models (timeout 10 seconds)
python-datanommer-models.spec: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/d/datanommer.models/datanommer.models-0.2.0.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
No issues.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
GPLv3+
[+] 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 must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
$ sha256sum *
57f9486bea0c3854e6ca8dbdb454737bff6ab54083f1264795eacab6bd527d33
datanommer.models-0.2.0.tar.gz
57f9486bea0c3854e6ca8dbdb454737bff6ab54083f1264795eacab6bd527d33
datanommer.models-0.2.0.tar.gz.orig
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[.] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
[Bug 865535] Review Request: python-datanommer-models - SQLAlchemy models for datanommer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865535 --- Comment #4 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #3) Still two objections: The CFLAGS definition is useless here, we don't have any C code. This package is a split-out from datanommer. It's only defined that it conflicts with that. This would mean that somebody can install datanommer *or* python-datanommer-models. But isn't it the successor of datanommer? To have a clean upgrade path, I would use the following instead: Obsoletes: datanommer 0.2.0 Provides:datanommer The latter is for making rpmlint happy, but not really necessary in my mind, because we get more than one package which will obsolete it. The same you could do for the other (upcoming) splitouts of datanommer. Here's a new release that has the CFLAGS definition removed. Regarding the Conflicts/Obsoletes/Provides, I'd like to still maintain the datanommer package itself as a kind of meta-package that installs the splitoffs but also includes fedmsg-hub which will turn on a new service. Once these packages are approved, I would bump the datanommer meta package from 0.1.8 to 0.2.0 to match them. Do you think that would be okay? Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-datanommer-models.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-datanommer-models-0.2.0-3.fc18.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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865535] Review Request: python-datanommer-models - SQLAlchemy models for datanommer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865535 Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||865536 -- 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 865535] Review Request: python-datanommer-models - SQLAlchemy models for datanommer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865535 Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||865538 -- 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 865535] Review Request: python-datanommer-models - SQLAlchemy models for datanommer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865535 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m --- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- Just a quick comment: Please remove the upstream egg-info so that it gets rebuild. -- 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 865535] Review Request: python-datanommer-models - SQLAlchemy models for datanommer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865535 --- Comment #2 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- Thanks, Mario. New release with just that fix added. Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-datanommer-models.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-datanommer-models-0.2.0-2.fc18.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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
