[Bug 1757166] Review Request: gedit-plugin-editorconfig - EditorConfig plugin for Gedit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1757166 Mattia Verga changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2021-07-10 11:04:10 --- Comment #6 from Mattia Verga --- Package is available in repos -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1757166] Review Request: gedit-plugin-editorconfig - EditorConfig plugin for Gedit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1757166 --- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gedit-plugin-editorconfig -- 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 1757166] Review Request: gedit-plugin-editorconfig - EditorConfig plugin for Gedit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1757166 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin --- LGTM, 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 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 1757166] Review Request: gedit-plugin-editorconfig - EditorConfig plugin for Gedit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1757166
--- Comment #3 from "FeRD" (Frank Dana) ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #2)
> - Use:
>
> Source0:
> https://github.com/editorconfig/editorconfig-gedit/archive/v%{version}/
> editorconfig-gedit-%{version}.tar.gz
>
Done.
> - Build fails:
>
> + %py_byte_compile /usr/bin/python3
> /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/gedit-plugin-editorconfig-0.5.3-1.fc32.x86_64/usr/
> lib64/gedit/plugins/editorconfig_plugin
> /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.2QX1tx: line 43: fg: no job control
>
> I believe you need to BR python3-devel to use this macro:
>
> BuildRequires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-devel
Whoops, duh. Fixed.
> - Own this dir by removing the *:
>
> %{_libdir}/gedit/plugins/editorconfig_plugin/__pycache__/
Ah, it seems I misread
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_byte_compiling
... fixed.
Specfile and .srpm both updated at links provided in original request. All
items addressed. (And tested in mock this time, so I know it actually builds.
O:) )
--
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 1757166] Review Request: gedit-plugin-editorconfig - EditorConfig plugin for Gedit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1757166
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Use:
Source0:
https://github.com/editorconfig/editorconfig-gedit/archive/v%{version}/editorconfig-gedit-%{version}.tar.gz
- Build fails:
+ %py_byte_compile /usr/bin/python3
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/gedit-plugin-editorconfig-0.5.3-1.fc32.x86_64/usr/lib64/gedit/plugins/editorconfig_plugin
/var/tmp/rpm-tmp.2QX1tx: line 43: fg: no job control
I believe you need to BR python3-devel to use this macro:
BuildRequires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-devel
- Own this dir by removing the *:
%{_libdir}/gedit/plugins/editorconfig_plugin/__pycache__/
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.
[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", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License",
"Python Software Foundation License version 2", "*No copyright* Python
Software Foundation License". 39 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/gedit-plugin-
editorconfig/review-gedit-plugin-editorconfig/licensecheck.txt
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of
/usr/lib64/gedit/plugins/editorconfig_plugin/__pycache__
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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]: 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists.
[Bug 1757166] Review Request: gedit-plugin-editorconfig - EditorConfig plugin for Gedit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1757166
--- Comment #1 from "FeRD" (Frank Dana) ---
Note: The package is an ARCH package — despite not having any binary
components, and with '%global debug_package %{nil}' set in the spec file —
because, as I explain in the comments at the top of the .spec, the plugin is
installed into the GEdit plugin dir, which is in the arch-dependent libdir.
It also 'Requires: gedit%{_isa}' for the same reason.
--
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
