[Bug 1303569] Review Request: uflash - An utility to flash Python onto the BBC micro:bit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303569

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-08-24 12:22:58



-- 
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 1303569] Review Request: uflash - An utility to flash Python onto the BBC micro:bit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303569



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
uflash-1.0.3-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 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 1303569] Review Request: uflash - An utility to flash Python onto the BBC micro:bit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303569

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
uflash-1.0.3-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 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-2016-389585fba2

-- 
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 1303569] Review Request: uflash - An utility to flash Python onto the BBC micro:bit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303569

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |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 1303569] Review Request: uflash - An utility to flash Python onto the BBC micro:bit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303569



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
uflash-1.0.3-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-389585fba2

-- 
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 1303569] Review Request: uflash - An utility to flash Python onto the BBC micro:bit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303569

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
uflash-0.9.18b0-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 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-2016-4f2a8965bb

-- 
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 1303569] Review Request: uflash - An utility to flash Python onto the BBC micro:bit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303569



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
uflash-0.9.18b0-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-4f2a8965bb

-- 
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 1303569] Review Request: uflash - An utility to flash Python onto the BBC micro:bit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303569

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

[Bug 1303569] Review Request: uflash - An utility to flash Python onto the BBC micro:bit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303569



--- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/uflash

-- 
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 1303569] Review Request: uflash - An utility to flash Python onto the BBC micro:bit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303569

Praveen Kumar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #3 from Praveen Kumar  ---
Yes, rpmlint is not showing this warning now and source checksum also correct.


Rpmlint
---
Checking: uflash-0.9.18b0-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
  uflash-0.9.18b0-1.fc23.src.rpm
uflash.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time,
run-time, rudiment
uflash.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US programatically ->
grammatically, problematically, pragmatically
uflash.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary uflash
uflash.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time,
run-time, rudiment
uflash.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US programatically ->
grammatically, problematically, pragmatically
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.


Source checksums

https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/u/uflash/uflash-0.9.18b0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
876e427812530a14a1b662213343aca2c65e58b7e9bcf6d1625f0f1c317b6e1a
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
876e427812530a14a1b662213343aca2c65e58b7e9bcf6d1625f0f1c317b6e1a

 Approved ==

-- 
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 1303569] Review Request: uflash - An utility to flash Python onto the BBC micro:bit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303569



--- Comment #2 from kushal...@gmail.com  ---
I have the updated srpm with proper file permissions.

-- 
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 1303569] Review Request: uflash - An utility to flash Python onto the BBC micro:bit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303569

Praveen Kumar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||prku...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|kumarpraveen.nitdgp@gmail.c
   ||om



-- 
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 1303569] Review Request: uflash - An utility to flash Python onto the BBC micro:bit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303569



--- Comment #1 from Praveen Kumar  ---
Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



= 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.
[-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/prkumar/fedora-
 scm/1303569-uflash/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[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.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
 provide egg info.
[x]: 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]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.