https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865538
Bug ID: 865538 QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: datanommer-commands - Console commands for datanommer Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: rbean@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora
Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/datanommer-commands.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/datanommer-commands-0.2.0-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: Console commands for datanommer Fedora Account System Username: ralph
rpmlint */datanommer-commands* 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865538
Ralph Bean rbean@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |865535
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865538
--- Comment #1 from Ralph Bean rbean@redhat.com --- Updated release to remove the upstream egg-info so that it gets rebuilt.
Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/datanommer-commands.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/datanommer-commands-0.2.0-2.fc18.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865538
--- Comment #2 from Ralph Bean rbean@redhat.com --- Removed unnecessary CFLAGS definition:
Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/datanommer-commands.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/datanommer-commands-0.2.0-3.fc18.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865538
--- Comment #3 from Ralph Bean rbean@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/datanommer-commands.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/datanommer-commands-0.2.0-4.fc18.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865538
Mario Blättermann mario.blaettermann@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mario.blaettermann@gmail.co | |m QA Contact|extras-qa@fedoraproject.org |mario.blaettermann@gmail.co | |m Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865538
Bug 865538 depends on bug 865535, which changed state.
Bug 865535 Summary: Review Request: python-datanommer-models - SQLAlchemy models for datanommer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865535
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865538
Mario Blättermann mario.blaettermann@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaettermann@gmail.com --- BTW, why not rename this package to python-datanommer-commands? This would be a sign that it belongs to the other python-datanommer stuff.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865538
--- Comment #5 from Ralph Bean rbean@redhat.com --- Heh, I thought about it, but I thought dropping the "python-" would signify it installs commands that an end user might want to use (and not just "libs").
I'm warm to renaming it to python-datanommer-commands though, if you think the symmetry is better.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865538
Mario Blättermann mario.blaettermann@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mario.blaettermann@gmail.co | |m QA Contact|mario.blaettermann@gmail.co |extras-qa@fedoraproject.org |m |
--- Comment #6 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaettermann@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #5)
Heh, I thought about it, but I thought dropping the "python-" would signify it installs commands that an end user might want to use (and not just "libs").
I'm warm to renaming it to python-datanommer-commands though, if you think the symmetry is better.
OK, I'm convinced now ;) No matter, it was just an idea. you are not forced to use the "python-" prefix.
I'm still waiting for the BuildRoot Overrides. Actually it is not needed, if you build a package for python-datanommer-models in Rawhide, it is available in the BuildRoot next day. This way I can use Koji again.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865538
--- Comment #7 from Ralph Bean rbean@redhat.com --- Cool, then. :) The rawhide build should have gone through by now.
Here are the buildroot overrides just in case. I requested them just now:
- https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/override/edit?build=python-datanomme... - https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/override/edit?build=python-datanomme... - https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/override/edit?build=python-datanomme...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865538
Mario Blättermann mario.blaettermann@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaettermann@gmail.com --- Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4677558
$ rpmlint -i -v * datanommer-commands.src: I: checking datanommer-commands.src: I: checking-url http://pypi.python.org/pypi/datanommer.commands (timeout 10 seconds) datanommer-commands.src: I: checking-url http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/d/datanommer.commands/datanommer.comm... (timeout 10 seconds) datanommer-commands.noarch: I: checking datanommer-commands.noarch: I: checking-url http://pypi.python.org/pypi/datanommer.commands (timeout 10 seconds) datanommer-commands.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary datanommer-create-db Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
datanommer-commands.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary datanommer-stats Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
datanommer-commands.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary datanommer-dump Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
datanommer-commands.spec: I: checking-url http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/d/datanommer.commands/datanommer.comm... (timeout 10 seconds) 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Nothing of interest.
--------------------------------- 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 * 07aeb0ca5e54036fdac2686904b47e3efe02913a0d5b7d2a4d8004a91aebf98b datanommer.commands-0.2.0.tar.gz 07aeb0ca5e54036fdac2686904b47e3efe02913a0d5b7d2a4d8004a91aebf98b datanommer.commands-0.2.0.tar.gz.packaged
[+] 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 definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [.] MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package. [.] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} [.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[.] 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. [.] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See Koji build above (which uses Mock anyway). [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [.] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. [.] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [.] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [.] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.
----------------
PACKAGE APPROVED
----------------
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865538
Ralph Bean rbean@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #9 from Ralph Bean rbean@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: datanommer-commands Short Description: Console commands for datanommer Owners: ralph Branches: f17 f18 el6 InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865538
--- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865538
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865538
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- datanommer-commands-0.2.0-4.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/datanommer-commands-0.2.0-4.fc18
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865538
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- datanommer-commands-0.2.0-4.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/datanommer-commands-0.2.0-4.fc17
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865538
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- datanommer-commands-0.2.0-4.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/datanommer-commands-0.2.0-4.el6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865538
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865538
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865538
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865538
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- datanommer-commands-0.2.0-4.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865538
Ralph Bean rbean@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2012-11-14 14:45:48
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865538
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|ERRATA |CURRENTRELEASE
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865538
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- datanommer-commands-0.2.0-4.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865538
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@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.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865538
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- datanommer-commands-0.2.0-4.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865538
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@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.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865538
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@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.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865538
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- datanommer-commands-0.2.0-4.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org