Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: python-webob10 - WSGI request and response object
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754848
Summary: Review Request: python-webob10 - WSGI request and response object Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: steve.traylen@cern.ch QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: ---
Spec URL: http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python-webob10/python-webob10.spec SRPM URL: http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python-webob10/python-webob10-1.0.8-2.el6.src.r... Description: WebOb provides wrappers around the WSGI request environment, and an object to help create WSGI responses. The objects map much of the specified behavior of HTTP, including header parsing and accessors for other standard parts of the environment.
Scratch Build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3522731
this is an EPEL6 only build.
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=754848
Pádraig Brady pbrady@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pbrady@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Pádraig Brady pbrady@redhat.com 2011-11-17 18:44:21 EST --- This specific version of python-webob is being suggested for el6 because it's needed by the diablo release of openstack. I've requested a rebase against RHEL6.3 but in the meantime we need this package.
This package should be named python-webob1.0 for consistency with others of its ilk. I'll do that in 12 hours if no one beats me to it.
Thanks again Steve!
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=754848
Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |python-webob10 - WSGI |python-webob1.0 - WSGI |request and response object |request and response object
--- Comment #2 from Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch 2011-11-17 23:30:44 EST ---
This package should be named python-webob1.0 for consistency with others of its ilk. I'll do that in 12 hours if no one beats me to it.
http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python-webob10/python-webob1.0.spec http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python-webob10/python-webob1.0-1.0.8-3.el6.src....
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=754848
Pádraig Brady p@draigbrady.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |p@draigbrady.com Flag| |fedora-review?
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=754848
Pádraig Brady p@draigbrady.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Pádraig Brady p@draigbrady.com 2011-11-18 13:08:01 EST --- MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review.
2 (incorrect) rpmlint warnings: # rpmlint python-webob1.0-1.0.8-3.el6.src.rpm python-webob1.0-1.0.8-3.el6.noarch.rpm python-webob1.0.spec python-webob1.0.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US accessors -> accessory, accessorize, successors python-webob1.0.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US accessors -> accessory, accessorize, successors 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
PASS: follows existing conventions
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
PASS
MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
PASS
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. [3] 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.[4] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6] 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. MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9] 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 package must contain code, or permissable content. [17] 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). [18] 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. [18]
PASS. All these pass by fact that it's just a parallel install of the existing python-sqlalchemy package
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [7]
PASS noarch package builds
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. [10] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
PASS not applicable as noarch
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. [12]
PASS
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. [13]
PASS
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)[14]
PASS
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. [15]
PASS
MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
PASS
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20] 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. [19] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} [21] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.[20] 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. [22]
PASS not applicable
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. [23] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [24]
PASS
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=754848
Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #4 from Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch 2011-11-18 13:38:33 EST --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-webob1.0 Short Description: WSGI request and response object Owners: stevetraylen Branches: el6 InitialCC:
Pádraig, you should both take and assign this review to you. Review your package coming shortly.
Thanks for the review.
Steve.
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=754848
--- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limb@jcomserv.net 2011-11-18 13:55:52 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
Please take ownership of review BZs. Thanks!
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=754848
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED
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=754848
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-11-18 14:20:14 EST --- python-webob1.0-1.0.8-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-webob1.0-1.0.8-3.el6
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=754848
Pádraig Brady p@draigbrady.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |p@draigbrady.com
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=754848
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-11-19 14:58:13 EST --- python-webob1.0-1.0.8-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.
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=754848
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |python-webob1.0-1.0.8-3.el6 Resolution| |ERRATA Last Closed| |2011-12-03 15:55:47
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-12-03 15:55:47 EST --- python-webob1.0-1.0.8-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla