[Bug 1438913] Review Request: python-nbsphinx - Jupyter Notebook Tools for Sphinx

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438913

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2017-04-12 10:52:04



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-nbsphinx-0.2.13-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1438913] Review Request: python-nbsphinx - Jupyter Notebook Tools for Sphinx

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438913

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-nbsphinx-0.2.13-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 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-2017-0282989370

-- 
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 1438913] Review Request: python-nbsphinx - Jupyter Notebook Tools for Sphinx

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438913



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-nbsphinx-0.2.13-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-0282989370

-- 
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 1438913] Review Request: python-nbsphinx - Jupyter Notebook Tools for Sphinx

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438913

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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

[Bug 1438913] Review Request: python-nbsphinx - Jupyter Notebook Tools for Sphinx

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438913



--- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-nbsphinx

-- 
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 1438913] Review Request: python-nbsphinx - Jupyter Notebook Tools for Sphinx

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438913

Sanqui (David Labský)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #6 from Sanqui (David Labský)  ---
The description has been fixed and the license is now present in
python-nbsphinx-doc as well.

Looks good to me.  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 1438913] Review Request: python-nbsphinx - Jupyter Notebook Tools for Sphinx

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438913

Sanqui (David Labský)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dlab...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



-- 
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 1438913] Review Request: python-nbsphinx - Jupyter Notebook Tools for Sphinx

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438913



--- Comment #5 from Miro Hrončok  ---
Fixed the license thing. (Also added it to the docs package.)

Spec URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-nbsphinx.spec
SRPM URL:
https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-nbsphinx-0.2.13-1.fc25.src.rpm

-- 
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 1438913] Review Request: python-nbsphinx - Jupyter Notebook Tools for Sphinx

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438913



--- Comment #4 from Miro Hrončok  ---
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #2)
> > LICENSE can be found in the source directory.
> > [?]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
> > Not sure how to test yet
> 
> This has just one built package (python3-nbsphinx) - it contains %license
> LICENSE, so it should be fine.
> 
> If there are more built packages that does not depen on each other, such as
> python2-foo and python3-foo, they all need %license LICENSE. However if the
> pakcages depend on each other (for example bar and bar-devel depending on
> the first), it is ok to put %license LICENSE only to bar.

Oh, actually therey is also python-nbsphinx-doc and that one does not require
the python3-nbsphinx package so it also needs the LICENSE file, will fix.

-- 
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 1438913] Review Request: python-nbsphinx - Jupyter Notebook Tools for Sphinx

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438913



--- Comment #3 from Miro Hrončok  ---
Commas added, SRPM and SPEC synced.

Spec URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-nbsphinx.spec
SRPM URL:
https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-nbsphinx-0.2.13-1.fc25.src.rpm

-- 
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 1438913] Review Request: python-nbsphinx - Jupyter Notebook Tools for Sphinx

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438913



--- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok  ---
(In reply to Sanqui (David Labský) from comment #1)
> In the package description:
> >Unevaluated notebooks i.e. notebooks without stored output cells will be 
> >automatically executed during the Sphinx build process.
> 
> Personally, I would put commas in this sentence like so:
> 
> >Unevaluated notebooks, i.e. notebooks without stored output cells, will be 
> >automatically executed during the Sphinx build process.

OK.

> The description also seems to differ between the linked spec file and the one
> in the SRPM, see below.

I've updated a typo and forgot to reupload the SRPM or spec. Will fix with the
above change.

> LICENSE can be found in the source directory.
> [?]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
> Not sure how to test yet

This has just one built package (python3-nbsphinx) - it contains %license
LICENSE, so it should be fine.

If there are more built packages that does not depen on each other, such as
python2-foo and python3-foo, they all need %license LICENSE. However if the
pakcages depend on each other (for example bar and bar-devel depending on the
first), it is ok to put %license LICENSE only to bar.

-- 
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 1438913] Review Request: python-nbsphinx - Jupyter Notebook Tools for Sphinx

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438913

Sanqui (David Labský)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||dlab...@redhat.com



--- Comment #1 from Sanqui (David Labský)  ---
This is an informal review as I am not sponsored yet.

Package Review
==

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

= Primary issues =

In the package description:
>Unevaluated notebooks i.e. notebooks without stored output cells will be 
>automatically executed during the Sphinx build process.

Personally, I would put commas in this sentence like so:

>Unevaluated notebooks, i.e. notebooks without stored output cells, will be 
>automatically executed during the Sphinx build process.

The description also seems to differ between the linked spec file and the one
in the SRPM, see below.

= 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
 upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
 licenses manually.
LICENSE can be found in the source directory.
[?]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
Not sure how to test yet
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.6/site-
 packages, /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/__pycache__,
 /usr/lib/python3.6
Package definitely did not create these directories
[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.
[x]: 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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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:
[-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
 Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?)
No binary egg present.
[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 

[Bug 1438913] Review Request: python-nbsphinx - Jupyter Notebook Tools for Sphinx

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438913

Miro Hrončok  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1438917




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438917
[Bug 1438917] python-notebook-5.0.0 is available
-- 
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