[Bug 1418396] Review Request: the-new-hotness - Consume Anitya fedmsg messages to file bugzilla bugs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418396

Elliott Sales de Andrade  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 CC||quantum.anal...@gmail.com
   Fixed In Version||the-new-hotness-0.8.1-2.fc2
   ||5
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2020-08-03 00:20:27



--- Comment #14 from Elliott Sales de Andrade  ---
This was imported, and even retired after that. Please close your Review
Requests when they're imported.


-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1418396] Review Request: the-new-hotness - Consume Anitya fedmsg messages to file bugzilla bugs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418396



--- Comment #13 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/the-new-hotness

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1418396] Review Request: the-new-hotness - Consume Anitya fedmsg messages to file bugzilla bugs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418396

Björn "besser82" Esser  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|POST
  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #12 from Björn "besser82" Esser  ---
Package LGTM now!

One suggestion:

 * I'd use
   %{python2_sitelib}/the_new_hotness-%{version}-py%{python2_version}.egg-info
   instead of globbing %{python2_sitelib}/the_new_hotness-*.egg-info
   You are free whether to change this or not during import.


= Solution =

Package 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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1418396] Review Request: the-new-hotness - Consume Anitya fedmsg messages to file bugzilla bugs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418396



--- Comment #11 from Jeremy Cline  ---
Thanks for the review, I've addressed the issues.

SRPM URL: https://jcline.fedorapeople.org/the-new-hotness-0.8.1-2.fc27.src.rpm
Spec URL: https://jcline.fedorapeople.org/the-new-hotness.spec

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1418396] Review Request: the-new-hotness - Consume Anitya fedmsg messages to file bugzilla bugs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418396



--- Comment #10 from Björn "besser82" Esser  ---
Created attachment 1284493
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1284493=edit
licensecheck from fedora-review

Package Review
==

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


= 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)",
 "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 29 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck is attached.

 ---> Some of the (installed) sources are licensed GPLv2+, which is not
  reflected by the License tag.

[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.
[-]: 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 40960 bytes in 2 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines

 ---> Severe issues in License tag are present

[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]: 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.
[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:
[-]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in the-new-
 hotness-doc

 ---> doc-pkg is fine to be standalone.

[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.
[-]: 

[Bug 1418396] Review Request: the-new-hotness - Consume Anitya fedmsg messages to file bugzilla bugs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418396

Björn "besser82" Esser  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||besse...@fedoraproject.org
   Assignee|ignate...@redhat.com|besse...@fedoraproject.org
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #9 from Björn "besser82" Esser  ---
I'll take it for review…

From having a quick look over the spec file:

 * Group tag is obsolete since el6.  I'd suggest removal.

 * It's better to use %make_build instead of make %{?_smp_mflags}.

 * %autosetup -p1 -n %{name}-%{version}:  You can omit ' -n
%{name}-%{version}'.

 * %{python2_sitelib}/*:  Simply globbing the whole contents of this subdir
   usualy isn't a good idea…  It's better to explicitly name the single dirs
   or files being dropped there;  this is especially important when converting
   a package to python3 later.


I'll run f-r in the meantime.

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1418396] Review Request: the-new-hotness - Consume Anitya fedmsg messages to file bugzilla bugs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418396



--- Comment #8 from Jeremy Cline  ---
Updated to latest upstream


SRPM URL: https://jcline.fedorapeople.org/the-new-hotness-0.8.1-1.fc27.src.rpm
Spec URL: https://jcline.fedorapeople.org/the-new-hotness.spec

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1418396] Review Request: the-new-hotness - Consume Anitya fedmsg messages to file bugzilla bugs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418396

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: |Review Request:
   |python-the-new-hotness -|the-new-hotness - Consume
   |Consume Anitya fedmsg   |Anitya fedmsg messages to
   |messages to file bugzilla   |file bugzilla bugs
   |bugs|



-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org