[Bug 735160] New: Review Request: django-socialregistration - Django application enabling registration through a variety of APIs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: django-socialregistration - Django application enabling registration through a variety of APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=735160
Summary: Review Request: django-socialregistration - Django application enabling registration through a variety of APIs Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: sgallagh@redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: ---
Spec URL: http://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/django-socialregistration/dja... SRPM URL: http://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/django-socialregistration/dja... Description: Django Social Registration enables developers to add alternative registration methods based on third party sites.
Supported methods currently are:
OpenID OAuth Facebook Connect
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=735160
--- Comment #1 from Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com 2011-09-01 12:16:31 EDT --- Scratch-built successfully: Fedora 15: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3318718
Fedora Rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3318728
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=735160
Rahul Sundaram metherid@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |metherid@gmail.com AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |metherid@gmail.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=735160
Matthias Runge mrunge@matthias-runge.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mrunge@matthias-runge.de
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Runge mrunge@matthias-runge.de 2012-03-24 15:03:08 EDT --- Rahul, are you going to review this package? It is assigned to you.
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=735160
--- Comment #3 from Rahul Sundaram metherid@gmail.com 2012-03-25 01:07:31 EDT --- Feel free to take over.
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=735160
Matthias Runge mrunge@matthias-runge.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|metherid@gmail.com |mrunge@matthias-runge.de Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 from Matthias Runge mrunge@matthias-runge.de 2012-03-25 03:36:46 EDT --- OK, I'll take this one
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=735160
--- Comment #5 from Matthias Runge mrunge@matthias-runge.de 2012-03-25 04:34:50 EDT --- Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated
==== Generic ==== [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 [x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: 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 is included in %doc. [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint django-socialregistration-0.4.5-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint django-socialregistration-0.4.5-1.fc18.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/mrunge/review/735160/django-socialregistration-0.4.5.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : 4d5d04490794e2eb96748d673c611f97 MD5SUM upstream package : 4d5d04490794e2eb96748d673c611f97
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [!]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: 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. [x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Issues: [!]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag [!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 See: None
some annotations:
- according to https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/146 all django-packages are being renamed to python-django-... You should rename this one, too. - Requires: Django should be python-django (for devel-branch) - you should remove bundled egg-info cf. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Eggs#Upstream_Eggs - if you're not targeting EPEL5, you should clean up the issues above, too.
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=735160
--- Comment #6 from Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com 2012-04-25 14:59:12 EDT --- Sorry for the long delay. Updated spec here: http://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/django-socialregistration/pyt...
And SRPM: http://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/django-socialregistration/pyt...
And scratch-built in Koji here: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4022928
I updated to the latest upstream release (0.5.4) and made several of the changes above. I have no plans to support this on EPEL 5, so those comments should be irrelevant. I removed the eggs and changed the name.
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=735160
--- Comment #7 from Matthias Runge mrunge@matthias-runge.de 2012-04-25 16:19:44 EDT --- Some few notes/questions:
- I'd remove bundled egg-info in prep-section. You should move that form install to prep-section. - You have left rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in install section, clean section is not needed anymore. - you even don't need the %defattr(-,root,root,-)-line in files-section.
You should clean that out, those comments are irrelevant when building a package for EL5. I see no other issues.
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=735160
--- Comment #8 from Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com 2012-04-25 19:55:00 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7)
Some few notes/questions:
- I'd remove bundled egg-info in prep-section. You should move that form
install to prep-section.
It took me a while to realize what you meant. I've now removed the version of the .egg-info that shipped with the tarball so that it is regenerated by setup.py. It is now shipping in %files again, but rebuilt properly.
- You have left rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in install section, clean section is not
needed anymore.
That section was created automatically by rpmdev-newspec. I've removed it. I'm unclear about what you meant about the install section though. Should I remove the rm -rf there as well?
- you even don't need the %defattr(-,root,root,-)-line in files-section.
Removed.
New spec: http://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/django-socialregistration/pyt...
New SRPM: http://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/django-socialregistration/pyt...
Koji scratch-build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4023330
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=735160
--- Comment #9 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2012-04-25 20:15:03 EDT --- Unless you're packaging for EL5, you don't need to clean out the buildroot at the beginning of %install. You also don't need a BuildRoot: line, or a %clean section if you're not targeting EL5. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#Distribution_specif... have the details.
No (supported) release of EPEL or Fedora needs the %defattr line. Maybe EL4 needed it but that's EOL now.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=735160
--- Comment #10 from Matthias Runge mrunge@matthias-runge.de --- Oh, sorry, for delaying this.
Looking again at your spec, I stumbled upon this: %files %doc AUTHORS LICENSE README.rst %{python_sitelib}/socialregistration/*
(last line). This includes IMHO only the files in the directory, but not the dir itself. (You should remove the asterisk).
I'd approve this, when fixed.
rpmdev-newspec creates some more instructions than really necessary, that is a known issue. Obviously, nobody really cared that much, that he fixed this upstream.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=735160
Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(mrunge@matthias-r | |unge.de)
--- Comment #11 from Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com --- Thanks
Spec: http://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/django-socialregistration/pyt...
SRPM: http://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/django-socialregistration/pyt...
Koji scratch-build: http://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/django-socialregistration/pyt...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=735160
Matthias Runge mrunge@matthias-runge.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review?, |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(mrunge@matthias-r | |unge.de) |
--- Comment #12 from Matthias Runge mrunge@matthias-runge.de --- I'm very sorry that this took so long! It wasn't my intention to make this review longer than really necessary.
All issues cleared, package approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=735160
Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #13 from Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-django-socialregistration Short Description: Django application enabling registration through a variety of APIs Owners: sgallagh Branches: f17 f16 el6 el5 InitialCC: sgallagh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=735160
--- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=735160
Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2012-07-05 11:02:48
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla