[Bug 926034] Review Request: python-catkin_pkg - Library for retrieving information about catkin packages
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Sun Jun 2 17:08:15 UTC 2013
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=926034
Rich Mattes <richmattes at gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |richmattes at gmail.com
Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Rich Mattes <richmattes at gmail.com> ---
I'll take this review.
Initial comments:
1. It's probably better to use the "real" upstream repository instead of the
archives loaded to pypi. The pypi archives don't have any documentation. Real
upstream is at https://github.com/ros-infrastructure/catkin_pkg/tags, and the
github source URL guidelines and the snapshot package naming guidelines apply.
2. Unless you're targeting el5, you probably don't need the python-site* at the
top of the spec. These are defined on el6 and fedora.
Fedora-review, finished by me:
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires
===== 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]: 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
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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 %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rich/tmp/926034-python-
catkin_pkg/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[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).
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.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[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 are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python-catkin_pkg-0.1.10-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
python-catkin_pkg.noarch: W: no-documentation
python-catkin_pkg.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary catkin_create_pkg
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint python-catkin_pkg
python-catkin_pkg.noarch: W: no-documentation
python-catkin_pkg.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary catkin_create_pkg
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires
--------
python-catkin_pkg (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/python
python(abi)
Provides
--------
python-catkin_pkg:
python-catkin_pkg
Source checksums
----------------
https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/c/catkin_pkg/catkin_pkg-0.1.10.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
32c97f39c5ea6bf9002276b340af68796256c1b59a0785e9555a037f41245787
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
32c97f39c5ea6bf9002276b340af68796256c1b59a0785e9555a037f41245787
Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29
Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 926034
So action items are:
- Update to 0.1.11, using github upstream checkout guidelines
- Add checkout date and shortcommit to release tag as per snapshot guidelines
- Consider building and including docs (BuildRequires python-sphinx, make doc)
- Ask upstream to provide LICENSE (SHOULD)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=9MhdXkRHZm&a=cc_unsubscribe
More information about the package-review
mailing list