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=743162

Pierre-YvesChibon pingou@pingoured.fr changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pingou@pingoured.fr

--- Comment #1 from Pierre-YvesChibon pingou@pingoured.fr 2011-10-11 12:46:34 EDT --- I believe you should use %global instead of %define.

Otherwise, do you plan to have this on epel ? If not, you can do some cleaning: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#File_Permissions http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros

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=743162

Pierre-YvesChibon pingou@pingoured.fr changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |pingou@pingoured.fr Flag| |fedora-review?

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=743162

--- Comment #4 from Pierre-YvesChibon pingou@pingoured.fr 2011-10-12 02:28:49 EDT --- And for consistency and safety you should use %{modname} rather than %modname in the Patch0 line.

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=743162

Pierre-YvesChibon pingou@pingoured.fr changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+

--- Comment #6 from Pierre-YvesChibon pingou@pingoured.fr 2011-10-13 01:38:38 EDT ---

Package Review ==============

Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated

[x] : MUST - Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [x] : MUST - Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [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 - Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x] : MUST - Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x] : MUST - Rpmlint output is silent.

rpmlint python-concurrentloghandler-0.8.4-4.fc17.src.rpm

================================================================================ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

================================================================================

rpmlint python-concurrentloghandler-0.8.4-4.fc17.noarch.rpm

================================================================================ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

================================================================================

[x] : MUST - Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL.

/home/pierrey/Scripts/python/FedoraReview/src/743162/ConcurrentLogHandler-0.8.4.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : 6d1665c645711380d29c06a7017eed49 MD5SUM upstream package : 6d1665c645711380d29c06a7017eed49

[x] : MUST - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [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. [-] : 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 - Package contains no bundled libraries. [x] : MUST - Changelog in prescribed format. [x] : MUST - Sources contain only permissible code or content. [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. [-] : MUST - Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x] : MUST - License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x] : MUST - Package consistently uses macros. instead of hard-coded directory names. [x] : MUST - Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x] : MUST - Package does not generates 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. [x] : MUST - Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-] : MUST - Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x] : MUST - File names are valid UTF-8. [-] : MUST - Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x] : SHOULD - Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x] : SHOULD - Dist tag is present. [x] : SHOULD - SourceX is a working URL. [x] : SHOULD - Spec use %global instead of %define. [-] : 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 - 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. [-] : SHOULD - Man pages included for all executables. [x] : SHOULD - Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-] : SHOULD - Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] : SHOULD - Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-] : 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 - SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Patch0: %{modname}-0.8.4-testpath.patch (%{modname}-0.8.4-testpath.patch)

This package is APPROVED

You may want to look into the tests present, it can help you making sure the package work as it is supposed to.

I will now sponsor you into the packager group and you will be able to proceed with the following steps (uploading your package into the SCM, build it, create an update)

The main lines are described there: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Add_P... Some answers regarding Fedora's git are in: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_git_FAQ_for_package_maintainers

If you have any questions or problem, feel free to email me or to ping me on irc.

Also, the list of reviews can grow quite fast, so don't forget that as a packager you can now review packages from other packager. You can find the unassigned review request on: http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html

Welcome aboard :)

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=743162

--- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limb@jcomserv.net 2011-10-13 08:39:31 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests).

Added f16 branch.

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=743162

--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-10-13 20:06:42 EDT --- python-concurrentloghandler-0.8.4-4.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-concurrentloghandler-0.8.4-4....

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=743162

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |python-concurrentloghandler | |-0.8.4-4.fc16 Resolution| |ERRATA Last Closed| |2011-10-24 23:26:01

--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-10-24 23:26:01 EDT --- python-concurrentloghandler-0.8.4-4.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.