Not so much to make fedora-review happy, as to make %check succeed in an RPM built using the PyPI tarball I guess.

BTW we need to update waiverdb.spec to reference PyPI, I forgot about that.

We should find a way to make Jenkins catch this... ultimately stems from the fact that our rpmbuild.sh is generating tarballs in a different way than python setup.py sdist does it, hmm...

Also BTW you need to make sure on the Fedora package review you are posting an SRPM which is built with the PyPI tarball, not one generated by rpmbuild.sh from git because that generated tarball will not match.

Also BTW you need to make sure on the Fedora package review you are posting an SRPM which is built with the PyPI tarball, not one generated by rpmbuild.sh from git because that generated tarball will not match.

Yes, I built the SRPM with the PyPI tarball.

Not so much to make fedora-review happy, as to make %check succeed in an RPM built using the PyPI tarball I guess.
BTW we need to update waiverdb.spec to reference PyPI, I forgot about that.
We should find a way to make Jenkins catch this... ultimately stems from the fact that our rpmbuild.sh is generating tarballs in a different way than python setup.py sdist does it, hmm...

Correct, I will update the waiverdb.spec after we have uploaded WaiverDB to PyPI

The new commit message does not make English :-P

Try describing what is wrong and why your change is going to fix it.

Add some missing sources to MANIFEST.in

These files were accidentally left out of MANIFEST.in which means they are
not included in tarballs generated by `python setup.py sdist`. But we want them
in there for building the RPM.

The new commit message does not make English :-P
Try describing what is wrong and why your change is going to fix it.
Add some missing sources to MANIFEST.in

These files were accidentally left out of MANIFEST.in which means they are
not included in tarballs generated by python setup.py sdist. But we want them
in there for building the RPM.

Nice suggestion, I was being too lazy to come out a good message, :-P

:+1:

PR #35 will let Jenkins catch this mistake in future.

:+1: here too.