https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828732
Bug ID: 828732 QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: python-feedstail - A tail-f-like utility for feeds Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: mrunge@matthias-runge.de Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora
Spec URL: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-feedstail.spec SRPM URL: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-feedstail-0.4.0-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Feedstail is a tail-f-like utility for feeds. It monitor a feed and emits new entries. Feedstail aim to be simple, hackable and compatible with rsstail_ its C brother. Fedora Account System Username: mrunge
[mrunge@mrungexp SPECS]$ rpmlint /home/mrunge/rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-feedstail-0.4.0-1.fc17.src.rpm /home/mrunge/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/python-feedstail-0.4.0-1.fc17.noarch.rpm ./python-feedstail.spec python-feedstail.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hackable -> hack able, hack-able, hackle python-feedstail.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rsstail -> horsetail python-feedstail.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hackable -> hack able, hack-able, hackle python-feedstail.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rsstail -> horsetail python-feedstail.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary feedstail 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
koji scratchbuild http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4128137
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828732
Thomas Moschny thomas.moschny@gmx.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |thomas.moschny@gmx.de Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |thomas.moschny@gmx.de
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Moschny thomas.moschny@gmx.de --- Will do the review here. One question beforehand: Does feedstail support python3, and if yes, does it make sense to provides a python3 subpackage? (Only useful in case people use it as a library, I think.)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828732
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Moschny thomas.moschny@gmx.de --- (In reply to comment #1)
Only useful in case people use it as a library, I think.
Oh, and btw, if it is not used as a library, it can very well be named "feedstail" only, without the prefix.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828732
Matthias Runge mrunge@matthias-runge.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: feedstail - |python-feedstail - A |A tail-f-like utility for |tail-f-like utility for |feeds |feeds |
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Runge mrunge@matthias-runge.de --- I'll tend to view it as tool, not as library. So I'll rename it to feedstail. (SPEC and SRPM will follow).
Then python3 support will be irrelevant (currently).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828732
--- Comment #4 from Matthias Runge mrunge@matthias-runge.de --- updated SPEC: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/feedstail.spec SRPM: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/feedstail-0.4.0-1.fc17.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828732
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Moschny thomas.moschny@gmx.de --- Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated
Generated by fedora-review 0.1.3
My comments are inlined.
==== 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. [-]: 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. [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [!]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
The Storage class (see below) is from web.py, which is packaged in Fedora as python-webpy. Please check (perhaps with upstream) whether it is possible to use that instead of the bundled one.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [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. [x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [-]: 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. [!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Two issues here:
- The license should be "GPLv3+", not "GPLv3".
- The comments in feedstail/utils.py state that the "Storage" class (the only one in this file) is from the web.py project and thus in the Public Domain, whereas the file header is the standard GPLv3+ header. This has to be clarified upstream, I think. Until then, the license tag should be "GPLv3+ and Public Domain".
[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. [!]: MUST Package installs properly.
Wrong requirement: The package is named "python-feedparser", not "python-FeedParser".
[!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
See above.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint feedstail-0.4.0-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
feedstail.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hackable -> hack able, hack-able, hackle feedstail.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rsstail -> horsetail feedstail.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary feedstail 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
rpmlint feedstail-0.4.0-1.fc18.src.rpm
feedstail.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hackable -> hack able, hack-able, hackle feedstail.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rsstail -> horsetail 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL.
feedstail-0.4.0.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : 5b44af1b294e5c6a9aec70dc2ac158e2 MD5SUM upstream package : 5b44af1b294e5c6a9aec70dc2ac158e2
[!]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
In the %description:
- Grammar: "It monitor_s_ a feed ...", "Feedstail aim_s_ to be ..." - The last undescore is probably meant to be a comma. - (Only cosmetic) There should be a newline between the two paragraphs.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: 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. [-]: 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. [!]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires).
See above.
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
Please add a comment in the specfile for the -doc patch.
[!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Patch0: feedstail-doc.patch (feedstail-doc.patch ) [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: 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 Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint feedstail-0.4.0-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
feedstail.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hackable -> hack able, hack-able, hackle feedstail.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rsstail -> horsetail feedstail.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary feedstail 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
rpmlint feedstail-0.4.0-1.fc18.src.rpm
feedstail.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hackable -> hack able, hack-able, hackle feedstail.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rsstail -> horsetail 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Additional notes: - The rpmlint warnings are bogus. - You should think of creating something more usful to the user from the README.rst, using either rst2html or even rst2man (both from the python-docutils package) at build time, and install the resulting HTML and/or manpage. (Surely not a blocker though, just a suggestion.)
Package is not yet approved, please have a look at the marked issues.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828732
--- Comment #6 from Matthias Runge mrunge@matthias-runge.de --- (In reply to comment #5) Thank you for the review!
- The comments in feedstail/utils.py state that the "Storage" class (the only one in this file) is from the web.py project and thus in the Public Domain, whereas the file header is the standard GPLv3+ header. This has to be clarified upstream, I think. Until then, the license tag should be "GPLv3+ and Public Domain".
That's a good catch. I'll ask upstream.
Wrong requirement: The package is named "python-feedparser", not "python-FeedParser".
Oops, I'm sorry! This shouldn't happen. I'll correct that in the next version.
[!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
See above.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint feedstail-0.4.0-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
feedstail.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hackable -> hack able, hack-able, hackle feedstail.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rsstail -> horsetail feedstail.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary feedstail 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
rpmlint feedstail-0.4.0-1.fc18.src.rpm
feedstail.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hackable -> hack able, hack-able, hackle feedstail.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rsstail -> horsetail 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL.
feedstail-0.4.0.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : 5b44af1b294e5c6a9aec70dc2ac158e2 MD5SUM upstream package : 5b44af1b294e5c6a9aec70dc2ac158e2
[!]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
In the %description:
- Grammar: "It monitor_s_ a feed ...", "Feedstail aim_s_ to be ..."
- The last undescore is probably meant to be a comma.
- (Only cosmetic) There should be a newline between the two paragraphs.
I took the description from pypi.python.org. Nevertheless, you're right, and I'll correct it for the package and report it upstream.
Please add a comment in the specfile for the -doc patch.
Asked upstream to include that "patch".
Additional notes:
- The rpmlint warnings are bogus.
- You should think of creating something more usful to the user from the
README.rst, using either rst2html or even rst2man (both from the python-docutils package) at build time, and install the resulting HTML and/or manpage. (Surely not a blocker though, just a suggestion.)
Package is not yet approved, please have a look at the marked issues.
I will update this during the next days.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828732
--- Comment #7 from Matthias Runge mrunge@matthias-runge.de --- No response from upstream regarding feedstail/utils.py. or even regarding that 'patch'. I added a comment, what it does.
I'd tend to see utils.py as fork from the corresponding file in web.py That file has 62 lines of code including comments. web.py takes about 570k, when installed.
Updated SRPM: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/feedstail-0.4.0-2.fc17.src.rpm SPEC: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/feedstail.spec
[mrunge@mrungexp SPECS]$ rpmlint ./feedstail.spec ../RPMS/noarch/feedstail-0.4.0-2.fc17.noarch.rpm ../SRPMS/feedstail-0.4.0-2.fc17.src.rpm feedstail.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hackable -> hack able, hack-able, hackle feedstail.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rsstail -> horsetail feedstail.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary feedstail feedstail.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hackable -> hack able, hack-able, hackle feedstail.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rsstail -> horsetail 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
[mrunge@mrungexp SPECS]$ diff -u feedstail.spec.1 feedstail.spec --- feedstail.spec.1 2012-06-06 11:06:34.000000000 +0200 +++ feedstail.spec 2012-06-21 09:08:38.840649652 +0200 @@ -1,11 +1,14 @@ Name: feedstail Version: 0.4.0 -Release: 1%{?dist} +Release: 2%{?dist} Summary: A tail-f-like utility for feeds
-License: GPLv3 +License: GPLv3+ and Public Domain URL: http://pypi.python.org/pypi/%%7Bname%7D/0.4.0 Source0: http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/f/%%7Bname%7D/%%7Bname%7D-%%7Bversion... + +# this simple patch makes setup install not to install docs under /usr +# upstream is informed, but doesn't have a (public) bug tracker Patch0: feedstail-doc.patch
BuildArch: noarch @@ -14,16 +17,19 @@ BuildRequires: python-setuptools
Requires: python-argparse -Requires: python-FeedParser +Requires: python-feedparser
%description -Feedstail is a tail-f-like utility for feeds. It monitor a +Feedstail is a tail-f-like utility for feeds. It monitors a feed and emits new entries. -Feedstail aim to be simple, hackable and compatible -with rsstail_ its C brother. + +Feedstail aims to be simple, hackable and compatible +with rsstail, its C brother.
%prep %setup -q + +# patch setup.py not to install docs in /usr %patch0 -p1 # Remove bundled egg-info rm -rf %{name}.egg-info @@ -45,5 +51,11 @@ %{_bindir}/%{name}
%changelog +* Thu Jun 21 2012 Matthias Runge mrunge@matthias-runge.de - 0.4.0-2 +- correct license +- add a comment regarding patch +- correct requirement python-feedparser +- correct description + * Tue Jun 05 2012 Matthias Runge mrunge@matthias-runge.de - 0.4.0-1 - Initial package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828732
Thomas Moschny thomas.moschny@gmx.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Moschny thomas.moschny@gmx.de --- Looks good now.
You should add a comment above the License: tag explaining which file is PD - can be done while importing.
APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828732
Matthias Runge mrunge@matthias-runge.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #9 from Matthias Runge mrunge@matthias-runge.de --- Thank you for your review!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: feedstail Short Description: A tail-f-like utility for feeds Owners: mrunge Branches: f17
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828732
--- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828732
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828732
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- feedstail-0.4.0-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/feedstail-0.4.0-3.fc17
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828732
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- feedstail-0.4.0-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828732
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2012-07-10 12:24:01
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- feedstail-0.4.0-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla