[Bug 770765] Review Request: python3-modgrammar - Modular grammar-parsing engine

Fri Dec 30 04:44:34 UTC 2011

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=770765

Spencer Jackson <spencerandrewjackson at yahoo.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |spencerandrewjackson at yahoo.
                   |                            |com

--- Comment #1 from Spencer Jackson <spencerandrewjackson at yahoo.com> 2011-12-29 23:44:33 EST ---
I'm not able to give you a formal review, but I was able to look over your
package and go over the checklist. I hope this helps!

MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.

[makerpm at khezef rpmbuild]$ rpmlint SPECS/python3-modgrammar.spec
RPMS/noarch/python3-modgrammar-0.8-2.fc16.noarch.rpm
SRPMS/python3-modgrammar-0.8-2.fc16.src.rpm python3-modgrammar
python3-modgrammar.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parsers ->
parser, parses, parers
python3-modgrammar.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parsers ->
parser, parses, parers
python3-modgrammar.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parsers ->
parser, parses, parers
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK. Name contains only ASCII characters. Name 'modgrammar' matches with
upstream project, python3 prefix correctly attached. Specfile correctly named.
Version is numeric, so version and release tags are trivially correct. There
does exist a doc subdirectory full of rst files in the source tarball. Consider
packaging it? There's ~70K of unprocessed documentation so maybe consider a doc
subpackage?

MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
OK.

MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
FIXME. BSD is a valid license. No external components, or included 3rd party
components. Spec is legible. Built successfully on x86_64. Doesn't install
anything outside of %{python3_sitelib}, thus adhering to the LHS. Tags used
correctly. No Requires are used. egg-info is installed as documentation. Google
indicates this folder is used for pkg_resources? It probably shouldn't be
documentation... http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Eggs has an
example of it... Also looks like you have a few unowned directories.
%{python3_sitelib}/modgrammar-0.8-py3.2.egg-info/,
%{python3_sitelib}/modgrammar/__pycache__/,  and %{python3_sitelib}/modgrammar/
don't belong to your package, and they should. Maybe use a wildcard in
%{python3_sitelib} to grab everything? The patch should have a comment
describing its upstream status. Test suite should be invoked in a %check
section.

MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
FIXME. BSD is an approved license. Source package does not contain the text of
the license. Contact upstream and ask for this to be corrected. Note that the
license is not contained in the source files.

MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
Unknown. setup.py says 'BSD' but that doesn't tell us what kind of BSD...

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 must be included in %doc.
It doesn't.

MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK.

MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK.

MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
OK. Sources and upstream source have md5sum 74c8db3b4276bb49a2c11934ada33762.

MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
OK. Built on x86_64

MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
NA I do not have access to any other architectures. But it's noarch, so that
should be alright.

MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
OK.

MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
OK. No locales

MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
OK. No shared libraries.

MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
OK.

MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
OK. Not designed to be relocatable.

MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create
a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create
that directory.
FIXME. See above.

MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)
OK.

MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example.
OK.

MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK.

MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK.

MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition
of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to
size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
OPTIONAL. See above.

MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is not present.
FIXME: See above.

MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
OK.

MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
OK.

MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel
package.
OK.

MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release}
OK.

MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built.
OK

MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file,
and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need
a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
OK.

MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with
any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you
feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another
package owns, then please present that at package review time.
OK.

MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
OK.

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.
Please do this.

SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should
contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
Should be fine. There aren't any available translations.

SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
FIXME. Mock fails. Looking at the logs, I see the following output as it died:

Processing files: python3-modgrammar-0.8-2.fc16.noarch
error: File not found:
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python3-modgrammar-0.8-2.fc16.x86_64/usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/modgrammar/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-32.pyc
error: File not found:
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python3-modgrammar-0.8-2.fc16.x86_64/usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/modgrammar/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-32.pyo
RPM build errors:
error: File not found:
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python3-modgrammar-0.8-2.fc16.x86_64/usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/modgrammar/__pycache__/extras.cpython-32.pyc
error: File not found:
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python3-modgrammar-0.8-2.fc16.x86_64/usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/modgrammar/__pycache__/extras.cpython-32.pyo
error: File not found:
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python3-modgrammar-0.8-2.fc16.x86_64/usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/modgrammar/__pycache__/util.cpython-32.pyc
error: File not found:
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python3-modgrammar-0.8-2.fc16.x86_64/usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/modgrammar/__pycache__/util.cpython-32.pyo
    File not found:
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python3-modgrammar-0.8-2.fc16.x86_64/usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/modgrammar/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-32.pyc
    File not found:
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python3-modgrammar-0.8-2.fc16.x86_64/usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/modgrammar/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-32.pyo
    File not found:
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python3-modgrammar-0.8-2.fc16.x86_64/usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/modgrammar/__pycache__/extras.cpython-32.pyc
    File not found:
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python3-modgrammar-0.8-2.fc16.x86_64/usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/modgrammar/__pycache__/extras.cpython-32.pyo
    File not found:
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python3-modgrammar-0.8-2.fc16.x86_64/usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/modgrammar/__pycache__/util.cpython-32.pyc
    File not found:
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python3-modgrammar-0.8-2.fc16.x86_64/usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/modgrammar/__pycache__/util.cpython-32.pyo
Child returncode was: 1
EXCEPTION: Command failed. See logs for output.

That's kind of strange. I don't understand why Python doesn't bytecompile in
mock, and ONLY in mock... I'm looking in to it... It shouldn't be this kind of
showstopper if you glob the install paths though, as per above.

SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
It's noarch.

SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
The literal HelloWorld in the tutorial works.

SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague,
and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
OK. No scriptlets.

SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency.
OK. No subpackages.

SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and
this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg.
A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not
installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb.
OK. No pkgconfig

SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file
instead of the file itself.
OK. No file dependencies.

SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it
doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.
OK. I don't think it makes sense for a python module to have man page.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.