[Bug 1288886] Review Request: python-portalocker - Library to provide an easy API to file locking

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=126



--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-portalocker-0.5.6-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 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.
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 1288886] Review Request: python-portalocker - Library to provide an easy API to file locking

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=126

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-06-30 17:28:08



-- 
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 1288886] Review Request: python-portalocker - Library to provide an easy API to file locking

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=126

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-portalocker-0.5.6-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-a31c198e2f

-- 
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 1288886] Review Request: python-portalocker - Library to provide an easy API to file locking

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=126

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |MODIFIED



-- 
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 1288886] Review Request: python-portalocker - Library to provide an easy API to file locking

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=126



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-portalocker-0.5.6-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-a31c198e2f

-- 
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 1288886] Review Request: python-portalocker - Library to provide an easy API to file locking

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=126



--- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-portalocker

-- 
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 1288886] Review Request: python-portalocker - Library to provide an easy API to file locking

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=126

William Moreno  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #11 from William Moreno  ---
Package aproved
===

-- 
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 1288886] Review Request: python-portalocker - Library to provide an easy API to file locking

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=126

William Moreno  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #9 from William Moreno  ---
ping

-- 
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 1288886] Review Request: python-portalocker - Library to provide an easy API to file locking

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=126



--- Comment #8 from William Moreno  ---
Just provide the doc subpackage, can be realle usefull.

-- 
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 1288886] Review Request: python-portalocker - Library to provide an easy API to file locking

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=126

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(i.gnatenko.brain@ |
   |gmail.com)  |



--- Comment #7 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
Sorry, didn't have time.

I will look into your comments. Regarding difference of srpm/spec its really
minor issue ;)

-- 
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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1288886] Review Request: python-portalocker - Library to provide an easy API to file locking

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=126

William Moreno  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com
  Flags||needinfo?(i.gnatenko.brain@
   ||gmail.com)



--- Comment #6 from William Moreno  ---
Any update here?

-- 
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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1288886] Review Request: python-portalocker - Library to provide an easy API to file locking

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=126

William Moreno  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(williamjmorenor@g |
   |mail.com)   |



--- Comment #5 from William Moreno  ---
Package Review
==

1. The spec file in the url if not the same than the spec in the src.rpm
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Upload a new src.rpm a be sure to update the spec link.

2. Upstream Provides a Sphinx doc than you should build and include in a -doc
subpackage.

Take a look at the bundleds, this is not a bloquer but it is usefull for users,
also if you build the docs use weak depencies to suggest the doc subpackage

= 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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: 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
[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.
[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 must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: 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]: 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:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
 process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
 provide egg info.
[ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Packager, 

[Bug 1288886] Review Request: python-portalocker - Library to provide an easy API to file locking

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=126

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(williamjmorenor@g
   ||mail.com)



--- Comment #4 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
(In reply to William Moreno from comment #2)
> Test builds: 
> 
> http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/williamjmorenor/fedora-review-test/build/
> 146960/

I dont care about fedora22 and el7. I am only taking care about f23+.

Please do review and we will move to next package.

-- 
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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1288886] Review Request: python-portalocker - Library to provide an easy API to file locking

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=126



--- Comment #3 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
williamjmorenor's scratch build of
python-portalocker-0.5.4-1.gitb0de666.fc24.src.rpm for rawhide completed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12142478

-- 
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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1288886] Review Request: python-portalocker - Library to provide an easy API to file locking

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=126



--- Comment #2 from William Moreno  ---
Test builds: 

http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/williamjmorenor/fedora-review-test/build/146960/

-- 
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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1288886] Review Request: python-portalocker - Library to provide an easy API to file locking

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=126

Jeremy Cline  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jer...@jcline.org



--- Comment #1 from Jeremy Cline  ---
Hi Igor,

My package review is informal, as I am working towards becoming a maintainer.

1) Nitpicky, but the %description is pretty barebones. I poked around the
project documentation, but I didn't see a great description in them, either.
Still, it'd be nice to expand it a bit.

I couldn't find anything else wrong, so either I'm not very good, or well done
on your part!

-- 
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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1288886] Review Request: python-portalocker - Library to provide an easy API to file locking

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=126

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1288893




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288893
[Bug 1288893] Update to 0.9.1; add py3 subpkg; other fixes
-- 
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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1288886] Review Request: python-portalocker - Library to provide an easy API to file locking

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=126

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1276941 (fedora-neuro)
  Alias||python-portalocker




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276941
[Bug 1276941] Fedora NeuroImaging and NeuroScience tracking bug
-- 
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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review