[Bug 927475] New: Review Request: python-genlisp - Lisp ROS message and service generators
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927475
Bug ID: 927475 Summary: Review Request: python-genlisp - Lisp ROS message and service generators Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: richmattes@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/rospackages/genlisp/python-genlisp.spec SRPM URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/rospackages/genlisp/python-genlisp-0.3.3-2.g... Description: genlisp generates ROS Lisp messages from message definition files
Fedora Account System Username: rmattes
rpmlint: $ rpmlint python-genlisp.spec ../../RPMS/noarch/python-genlisp* python-genlisp.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: wg-debs-genlisp-release-upstream-0.3.3-0-gee0307d.tar.gz python-genlisp.noarch: W: no-documentation python-genlisp.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/pkgconfig/genlisp.pc python-genlisp.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gen_lisp.py 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927475
Rich Mattes richmattes@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |927470
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927475
Rich Mattes richmattes@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |928584 (ros-std_msgs)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927475
Rich Mattes richmattes@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |972346
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927475
--- Comment #1 from Rich Mattes richmattes@gmail.com --- Update, fixed the package requirements and upstream url to the github guidelines. New spec and srpm can be found at:
Spec URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/rospackages/genlisp/python-genlisp.spec SRPM URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/rospackages/genlisp/python-genlisp-0.3.3-3.2...
rpmlint: $ rpmlint python-genlisp.spec ../../RPMS/noarch/python-genlisp-* python-genlisp.noarch: W: no-documentation python-genlisp.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gen_lisp.py python-genlisp-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927475
Mario Blättermann mario.blaettermann@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |mario.blaettermann@gmail.co | |m Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mario.blaettermann@gmail.co | |m Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaettermann@gmail.com --- Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5568948
$ rpmlint -i -v *python-genlisp.src: I: checking python-genlisp.src: I: checking-url http://ros.org/ (timeout 10 seconds) python-genlisp.src: I: checking-url https://github.com/ros/genlisp/archive/8790a17484d7eeb316a4225cdd20c2acb714c... (timeout 10 seconds) python-genlisp.noarch: I: checking python-genlisp.noarch: I: checking-url http://ros.org/ (timeout 10 seconds) python-genlisp.noarch: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files.
python-genlisp.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gen_lisp.py Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
python-genlisp-devel.noarch: I: checking python-genlisp-devel.noarch: I: checking-url http://ros.org/ (timeout 10 seconds) python-genlisp-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files.
python-genlisp.spec: I: checking-url https://github.com/ros/genlisp/archive/8790a17484d7eeb316a4225cdd20c2acb714c... (timeout 10 seconds) 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
No manpages and no docs. Unfortunately, there's nothing which we could consider as documentation, and it is not up to you to write a manpage.
--------------------------------- key:
[+] OK [.] OK, not applicable [X] needs work ---------------------------------
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review. [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. 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. [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. $ sha256sum * 54cbb6413c88f7756c5655574daf116177cfb2cec31be420320595a4aea44e6f genlisp-0.3.3-8790a17.tar.gz 54cbb6413c88f7756c5655574daf116177cfb2cec31be420320595a4aea44e6f genlisp-0.3.3-8790a17.tar.gz.orig
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [.] 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. [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. [.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. [.] 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. [.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [.] 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. [+] 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. [+] 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) [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [.] 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). [.] 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. [.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [+] MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package. [+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} [.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [.] 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. [+] 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. [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[.] 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. [.] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See Koji build above (which uses Mock anyway). [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [.] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. [.] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [+] 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. [.] 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. [.] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.
----------------
PACKAGE APPROVED
----------------
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927475
Bug 927475 depends on bug 927470, which changed state.
Bug 927470 Summary: Review Request: python-genmsg - Python library for generating ROS message and service data https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927470
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927475
Rich Mattes richmattes@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #3 from Rich Mattes richmattes@gmail.com --- Thanks for the review Mario.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-genlisp Short Description: Lisp ROS message and service generators Owners: rmattes Branches: f18 f19 el6 InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927475
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927475
--- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927475
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927475
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-genpy-0.3.7-5.20130623giteddf66e.fc19,python-genlisp-0.3.3-3.20130623git8790a17.fc19,python-gencpp-0.3.4-3.20130623git403d067.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-genpy-0.3.7-5.20130623giteddf...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927475
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-genpy-0.3.7-5.20130623giteddf66e.fc19, python-genlisp-0.3.3-3.20130623git8790a17.fc19, python-gencpp-0.3.4-3.20130623git403d067.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927475
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |python-genpy-0.3.7-5.201306 | |23giteddf66e.fc19 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2013-08-01 23:25:36
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-genpy-0.3.7-5.20130623giteddf66e.fc19, python-genlisp-0.3.3-3.20130623git8790a17.fc19, python-gencpp-0.3.4-3.20130623git403d067.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla