[Bug 865615] Review Request: python-gerrit - Python interface to Gerrit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865615

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 CC||ppi...@redhat.com
   Fixed In Version||python-gerrit-0.0.1-2.gita7
   ||ffd76.fc17
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|p...@draigbrady.com
Last Closed||2020-04-23 12:18:51




-- 
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 865615] Review Request: python-gerrit - Python interface to Gerrit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865615

Pádraig Brady  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|p...@draigbrady.com|nob...@fedoraproject.org



-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 865615] Review Request: python-gerrit - Python interface to Gerrit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865615

--- Comment #1 from Federico Simoncelli fsimo...@redhat.com ---
Scratch Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4584963

No errors/warnings running fedora-review and rpmlint.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 865615] Review Request: python-gerrit - Python interface to Gerrit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865615

Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||p...@draigbrady.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|p...@draigbrady.com

--- Comment #2 from Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com ---
I see you've used python2_sitelib.
That's a recent addition and not mentioned here at least:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python

Also I notice pyp2rpm still uses python_sitelib.

Maybe it's better to stick with that?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 865615] Review Request: python-gerrit - Python interface to Gerrit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865615

Federico Simoncelli fsimo...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(p...@draigbrady.com)

--- Comment #3 from Federico Simoncelli fsimo...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to comment #2)
 I see you've used python2_sitelib.
 That's a recent addition and not mentioned here at least:
 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
 
 Also I notice pyp2rpm still uses python_sitelib.
 
 Maybe it's better to stick with that?

The python2_sitelib macro is already present in f17 (the package was primarily
built on f17 and then rebuilt against rawhide on koji as requested somewhere in
the packaging guidelines).

I don't have strong opinions about it, except the fact that if we change it now
(to python_sitelib) we might need to change it later again.

It's up to you.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 865615] Review Request: python-gerrit - Python interface to Gerrit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865615

Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
  Flags|needinfo?(p...@draigbrady.com) |

--- Comment #4 from Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com ---
I'd have a slight preference with sticking with python_sitelib,
until a global python2/3 transition plan is done

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 865615] Review Request: python-gerrit - Python interface to Gerrit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865615

Federico Simoncelli fsimo...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(p...@draigbrady.com)

--- Comment #5 from Federico Simoncelli fsimo...@redhat.com ---
Spec URL: http://fsimonce.fedorapeople.org/python-gerrit/python-gerrit.spec
SRPM URL:
http://fsimonce.fedorapeople.org/python-gerrit/python-gerrit-0.0.1-2.gita7ffd76.fc17.src.rpm
Description: python-gerrit is a Python interface to Gerrit, a code review
system for Git.
Fedora Account System Username: fsimonce
Scratch Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4585162

* Fri Oct 12 2012 Federico Simoncelli fsimo...@redhat.com -
0.0.1-2.gita7ffd76
- use the python_sitelib macro instead of python2_sitelib

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 865615] Review Request: python-gerrit - Python interface to Gerrit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865615

Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(p...@draigbrady.com) |
  Flags||fedora-review+

--- Comment #6 from Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com ---
All looks good. Thanks!

[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
 least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm  4.4
 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
 Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST 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 %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
 found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
 Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[-]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present
 Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
 Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
 /usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
 --requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
 upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for 

[Bug 865615] Review Request: python-gerrit - Python interface to Gerrit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865615

Federico Simoncelli fsimo...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #7 from Federico Simoncelli fsimo...@redhat.com ---
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: python-gerrit
Short Description: Python interface to Gerrit
Owners: fsimonce
Branches: f17 f18 el6
InitialCC:

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 865615] Review Request: python-gerrit - Python interface to Gerrit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865615

--- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review