[Bug 1532023] Review Request: ddupdate - A Dynamic DNS Updater

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1532023



--- Comment #13 from Alec Leamas  ---
EPEL process is sort of slow, but at last:

The following comment has been added to the ddupdate-0.6.0-2.el7 update:

bodhi - 2018-03-06 17:31:54.304749 (karma: 0)
This update has been pushed to stable.

https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-842be2e212

-- 
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 1532023] Review Request: ddupdate - A Dynamic DNS Updater

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1532023



--- Comment #12 from Alec Leamas  ---
EPEL7 update is in bodhi:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/ddupdate-0.5.2-1.el7

Karma appreciated.

-- 
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 1532023] Review Request: ddupdate - A Dynamic DNS Updater

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1532023

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||projects...@smart.ms



--- Comment #11 from Raphael Groner  ---
Thanks for the package.

Can you also build for EPEL7? Scratch build was successful:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25076894

Be aware of our special guidelines for EPEL:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging

Should I open a new bug for this RFE?

-- 
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 1532023] Review Request: ddupdate - A Dynamic DNS Updater

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1532023

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2018-01-28 16:32:30



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
ddupdate-0.2.0-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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 1532023] Review Request: ddupdate - A Dynamic DNS Updater

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1532023

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
ddupdate-0.2.0-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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-2018-c9b7a8419a

-- 
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 1532023] Review Request: ddupdate - A Dynamic DNS Updater

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1532023

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|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 1532023] Review Request: ddupdate - A Dynamic DNS Updater

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1532023



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
ddupdate-0.2.0-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-c9b7a8419a

-- 
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 1532023] Review Request: ddupdate - A Dynamic DNS Updater

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1532023



--- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ddupdate. You may commit to the branch "f27"
in about 10 minutes.

-- 
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 1532023] Review Request: ddupdate - A Dynamic DNS Updater

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1532023



--- Comment #6 from Alec Leamas  ---
Thanks for 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 1532023] Review Request: ddupdate - A Dynamic DNS Updater

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1532023

Antonio Trande  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #5 from Antonio Trande  ---
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 1532023] Review Request: ddupdate - A Dynamic DNS Updater

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1532023



--- Comment #4 from Alec Leamas  ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #3)
> - This package is not correctly named, see common SPEC file
>   for Python packages:
>   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_common_spec_file
>  
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Naming?rd=Packaging:
> NamingGuidelines#Python_source_package_naming

No. These guidelines applies to python modules; that is, python libraries so to
speak. It does not apply to a tool like this. There is a large number of
examples available - fedora-review, koji and dnf comes to mind (all are
python).

> - Do not use hard-coded directory names:
>   rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/share/doc/ddupdate/*

Fixed. 

Using a new upstream release. New urls:
spec: https://leamas.fedorapeople.org/ddupdate/0.2.0-1/ddupdate.spec
srpm:
https://leamas.fedorapeople.org/ddupdate/0.2.0-1/ddupdate-0.2.0-1.fc26.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 1532023] Review Request: ddupdate - A Dynamic DNS Updater

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1532023



--- Comment #3 from Antonio Trande  ---
- This package is not correctly named, see common SPEC file
  for Python packages:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_common_spec_file
 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Naming?rd=Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Python_source_package_naming

Source rpm must be 'python-ddupdate'; its sub-package is

>>>
%package -n python%{python3_pkgversion}-%{srcname}
Summary:%{sum}
%{?python_provide:%python_provide python%{python3_pkgversion}-%{srcname}}

%description -n python%{python3_pkgversion}-%{srcname}
An python module which provides a convenient example.

...

%files -n python%{python3_pkgversion}-%{srcname}
%license COPYING
%doc README.rst
%{python3_sitelib}/*
...
<<<

- Do not use hard-coded directory names:
  rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/share/doc/ddupdate/*

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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 38 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/sagitter/1532023-ddupdate/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.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[!]: 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.
[x]: 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 20480 bytes in 3 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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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.
[!]: 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 

[Bug 1532023] Review Request: ddupdate - A Dynamic DNS Updater

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1532023



--- Comment #2 from Alec Leamas  ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #1)
> - Please, use %py3_build and py3_build macros in respective sections.
> 
> - Use %{_unitdir} always

Fixed, mostly by not using it whatsoever.

> - "%global debug_package %{nil}" is not needed when package is marked as
> "noarch"

Fixed 

> - Fix these SPEC/SRPM differences:

Fixed

spec https://leamas.fedorapeople.org/ddupdate/3/ddupdate.spec
srpm https://leamas.fedorapeople.org/ddupdate/3/ddupdate-0.1.0-3.fc26.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 1532023] Review Request: ddupdate - A Dynamic DNS Updater

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1532023

Antonio Trande  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|anto.tra...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Antonio Trande  ---
- Please, use %py3_build and py3_build macros in respective sections.

- Use %{_unitdir} always

- "%global debug_package %{nil}" is not needed when package is marked as
"noarch"

- Fix these SPEC/SRPM differences:

Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
-
--- /home/sagitter/1532023-ddupdate/srpm/ddupdate.spec2018-01-07
19:59:57.758161778 +0100
+++ /home/sagitter/1532023-ddupdate/srpm-unpacked/ddupdate.spec2018-01-07
12:19:55.0 +0100
@@ -57,5 +57,10 @@
 mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/lib/systemd/system
 mv $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/lib/systemd/system/* $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/lib/systemd/system
-rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/share/doc/ddupdate/*
+
+rm  -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/share/doc/ddupdate/*
+#rm  $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/share/doc/ddupdate/LICENSE.txt
+#rm  $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/share/doc/ddupdate/README.md
+#rm  $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/share/doc/ddupdate/CONTRIBUTE.md
+#rm  $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/share/doc/ddupdate/NEWS

 %pre

Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[ ]: 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 38 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/sagitter/1532023-ddupdate/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: 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
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: 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 20480 bytes in 3 files.
[ ]: 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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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:
[ ]: Python eggs