[Bug 2000347] Review Request: python-mkdocs-redirects - A MkDocs plugin for dynamic page redirects to prevent broken links
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2000347 Sandro Mani changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2021-09-07 15:46:26 --- Comment #6 from Sandro Mani --- Thanks! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 2000347] Review Request: python-mkdocs-redirects - A MkDocs plugin for dynamic page redirects to prevent broken links
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2000347 --- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-mkdocs-redirects -- 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 2000347] Review Request: python-mkdocs-redirects - A MkDocs plugin for dynamic page redirects to prevent broken links
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2000347
Miro Hrončok changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mhron...@redhat.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Miro Hrončok ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
This package is APPROVED. Once the version is tagged on GitHub, please include
the LICENSE and run the actual tests.
= 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]: 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: "*No copyright* Expat License", "Unknown or generated".
[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: No rpmlint messages.
[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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the
[Bug 2000347] Review Request: python-mkdocs-redirects - A MkDocs plugin for dynamic page redirects to prevent broken links
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2000347 --- Comment #3 from Sandro Mani --- Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/python-mkdocs-redirects.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/python-mkdocs-redirects-1.0.3-3.fc36.src.rpm %changelog * Fri Sep 03 2021 Sandro Mani - 1.0.3-3 - Add %%check - Add comment about missing LICENSE file -- 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 2000347] Review Request: python-mkdocs-redirects - A MkDocs plugin for dynamic page redirects to prevent broken links
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2000347 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mhron...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok --- Spec sanity: 1. There is no %check section. Having a check section is mandatory in new Python guidelines. If upstream has no tests suite, at least run %py3_check_import mkdocs_redirects to assert the module is importable. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#py3_check_import But I see tests in the upstream repo. 2. There seems to be no %license. I suggest asking upstream to tag the 1.0.3 release, so we can use the git tarball and have the tests and the license file as neither is in the sdists on PyPI. If you do talk to upstream, also suggest they add license_files=['LICENSE'] to their setup.py. Other than that, the specfile seems sane. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 2000347] Review Request: python-mkdocs-redirects - A MkDocs plugin for dynamic page redirects to prevent broken links
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2000347 Sandro Mani changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Sandro Mani --- Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/python-mkdocs-redirects.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/python-mkdocs-redirects-1.0.3-2.fc36.src.rpm %changelog * Thu Sep 02 2021 Sandro Mani - 1.0.3-2 - Port to new Python guidelines -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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
