Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226341
Summary: Merge Review: python-docs Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: nobody@fedoraproject.org QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com CC: wtogami@redhat.com
Fedora Merge Review: python-docs
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/python-docs/ Initial Owner: wtogami@redhat.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=226341
Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |jussi.lehtola@iki.fi AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jussi.lehtola@iki.fi Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2009-04-11 06:32:43 EDT --- - What is the stuff at the beginning needed for?
- You can use %{!?pyver: %global pyver %(%{__python} -c "import sys ; print sys.version[:3]")} to get the Python base version.
- Patches are not documented. - Commented patches should be removed.
- BuildRoot should be %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX)
- Remove topdir, pushd and popd and use make -C Doc instead.
- Remove buildroot check from install.
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=226341
--- Comment #2 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2009-04-11 06:52:41 EDT --- rpmlint output: python-docs.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot Documentation for the Python programming language. python-docs.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot Documentation for the Python programming language. python-docs.src:28: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes python2-docs 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. NEEDSFIX - See stuff mentioned above.
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. OK MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. NEEDSFIX - Why %defattr(-,root,root,755)?
MUST: Clean section exists. OK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. OK MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. OK MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK
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=226341
Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |james.antill@redhat.com, | |rrakus@redhat.com
--- Comment #3 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2009-04-24 16:39:23 EDT --- Please address the issues above.
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=226341
--- Comment #4 from Roman Rakus rrakus@redhat.com 2009-04-27 10:55:08 EDT --- diff -u -p -r1.18 python-docs.spec --- python-docs.spec 26 Feb 2009 21:14:56 -0000 1.18 +++ python-docs.spec 27 Apr 2009 14:52:41 -0000 @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
%define pybasever 2.6
-Summary: Documentation for the Python programming language. +Summary: Documentation for the Python programming language Name: %{python}-docs Version: %{pybasever} Release: 2%{?dist} @@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ mkdir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT rm -fr $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%files -%defattr(-,root,root,755) +%defattr(-,root,root) %doc Misc/NEWS Misc/README Misc/cheatsheet %doc Misc/HISTORY Doc/build/html
Is it ok?
python-docs.src:28: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes python2-docs
Any idea which version?
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=226341
--- Comment #5 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2009-04-27 11:40:53 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4)
%files -%defattr(-,root,root,755) +%defattr(-,root,root) %doc Misc/NEWS Misc/README Misc/cheatsheet %doc Misc/HISTORY Doc/build/html
Is it ok?
Should be %defattr(-,root,root,-)
python-docs.src:28: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes python2-docs
Any idea which version?
This isn't a problem.
Please address the issues in comment #1.
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=226341
--- Comment #6 from Roman Rakus rrakus@redhat.com 2009-05-06 05:53:09 EDT --- diff -u -p -r1.18 python-docs.spec --- python-docs.spec 26 Feb 2009 21:14:56 -0000 1.18 +++ python-docs.spec 6 May 2009 09:47:22 -0000 @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
%define pybasever 2.6
-Summary: Documentation for the Python programming language. +Summary: Documentation for the Python programming language Name: %{python}-docs Version: %{pybasever} Release: 2%{?dist} @@ -20,7 +20,6 @@ Source: http://www.python.org/ftp/python BuildArch: noarch
Patch4: python-2.6-nowhatsnew.patch -#Patch17: python-2.4-tex-fix.patch Patch18: python-2.6-extdocmodules.patch
Requires: %{python} = %{version} @@ -29,7 +28,8 @@ Obsoletes: python2-docs Provides: python2-docs = %{version} %endif
-BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-root +BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) + BuildRequires: %{python} python-sphinx python-docutils python-jinja BuildRequires: python-pygments URL: http://www.python.org/ @@ -46,19 +46,16 @@ for the Python language. %setup -q -n Python-%{version}
%patch4 -p1 -b .nowhatsnew -#%%patch17 -p1 -b .tex-fix %patch18 -p1 -b .extdocmodules
%build topdir=`pwd`
-pushd Doc -make html +make -C Doc html #rm html/index.html.in Makefile* info/Makefile tools/sgmlconv/Makefile -popd
%install -[ -d $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ] && rm -fr $RPM_BUILD_ROOT +rm -fr $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mkdir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
@@ -66,7 +63,7 @@ mkdir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT rm -fr $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%files -%defattr(-,root,root,755) +%defattr(-,root,root,-) %doc Misc/NEWS Misc/README Misc/cheatsheet %doc Misc/HISTORY Doc/build/html
- What is the stuff at the beginning needed for?
I don't know. The same is in python spec file
- You can use
%{!?pyver: %global pyver %(%{__python} -c "import sys ; print sys.version[:3]")} to get the Python base version.
I don't change it. I think the better is to set version by hand.
- Patches are not documented.
Patches are from previous package - python. I don't know what they were solving...
- Commented patches should be removed.
Commented lines removed. Patches aren't in cvs.
All else should be fixed.
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=226341
--- Comment #7 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2009-05-06 06:22:23 EDT --- OK, please commit the new spec to CVS so I can approve.
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=226341
--- Comment #8 from Roman Rakus rrakus@redhat.com 2009-05-06 06:50:58 EDT --- done
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=226341
Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2009-05-06 07:40:14 EDT --- - You might want to add "-p" to "mkdir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" in install phase.
- Also, you can remove the unnecessary topdir=`pwd` from the build phase.
The package has been
APPROVED
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=226341
Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org