https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865630
Bug ID: 865630 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-pyvfs - simple python vfs module Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: peet@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora
Spec URL: http://peet.spb.ru/archives/python-pyvfs.spec SRPM URL: http://peet.spb.ru/archives/python-pyvfs-0.2.3-1.fc16.src.rpm Description:
The primary goal of the module was to create a simple mechanism to export Python objects as file trees on a virtual filesystem. The mounted filesystem can be used for objects monitoring as well as for the program debugging.
But the module can also be used to create own filesystems, e.g. to use them as a sort of fs-based RPCs. More details on project pages:
github: https://github.com/svinota/pyvfs/wiki docs: http://peet.spb.ru/pyvfs/
Fedora Account System Username: psavelye
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865630
Eduardo Echeverria echevemaster@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |echevemaster@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemaster@gmail.com --- Hi Saveliev, If this is your first package, need to find a sponsor, tag FE-NEEDSPONSOR in blocks https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Special_blocker_ticket... https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group Best Regards
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865630
Saveliev Peter peet@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865630
--- Comment #2 from Saveliev Peter peet@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #1)
Indeed. Thanks a lot.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865630
--- Comment #3 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemaster@gmail.com --- Hi Saveliev
I'm not sponsor but I'll give a few comments that might help you:
rpmlint out: rpmlint -v python-pyvfs* python-pyvfs.noarch: I: checking python-pyvfs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US objectfs -> objects, object's, object python-pyvfs.noarch: W: non-standard-group Development/Python python-pyvfs.noarch: I: checking-url https://github.com/svinota/pyvfs (timeout 10 seconds) python-pyvfs.noarch: W: no-documentation python-pyvfs.src: I: checking python-pyvfs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US objectfs -> objects, object's, object python-pyvfs.src: W: non-standard-group Development/Python python-pyvfs.src: I: checking-url https://github.com/svinota/pyvfs (timeout 10 seconds) python-pyvfs.src: W: no-%build-section python-pyvfs.src: I: checking-url http://peet.spb.ru/archives/pyvfs-0.2.3.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings
- ignore spelling errors - Although PKG-INFO file clearly indicates that the software is GPLv3+ not there license file, Since you are the developer can easily include this license. (Include on %doc section) - You could use BuildRequires: python2-devel http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires - The correct group is Group: Development/Languages instead of Group: Development/Python https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RPMGroups - Although not build anything,Add a %build section and comment #Nothing to build
Usually a sponsors finds you, but if you have a connection with someone on this list https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/group/members/packager/*/sponsor can ask to sponsor you
Best Regards
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865630
--- Comment #4 from Saveliev Peter peet@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #3)
Thanks again. Will fix issues asap.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865630
--- Comment #5 from Saveliev Peter peet@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #3) <skip />
- Although PKG-INFO file clearly indicates that the software is GPLv3+ not
there license file, Since you are the developer can easily include this license. (Include on %doc section)
fixed
- You could use
BuildRequires: python2-devel
fixed
- The correct group is
Group: Development/Languages
fixed
- Although not build anything,Add a %build section and comment #Nothing to
build
fixed
<skip />
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865630
Saveliev Peter peet@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alias| |python-pyvfs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865630
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lemenkov@gmail.com Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
--- Comment #6 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com --- Unblocking FE-NEEDSPONSOR - I sponsored Peter. Eduardo, you may proceed with review now.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865630
Eduardo Echeverria echevemaster@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |echevemaster@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #7 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemaster@gmail.com --- Thanks a lot Peter
Hi Saveliev Welcome to the group package maintainers
some comments: - It is good practice to use macros to preserve the name of the application You can just do this: %global pkgname pyvfs Name: Name: python-pyvfs Source0: http://peet.spb.ru/archives/%%7Bpkgname%7D-%version.tar.gz %prep %setup -q -n %{pkgname}-%{version}
- Remember to increase the release number each time you make a change in spec and Changelog https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/Namin... Example:
Release: 2%{?dist} %changelog * Thu Oct 13 2012 Peter V. Saveliev peet@redhat.com 0.2.3-1 - Add build section - Change BuildRequires python2-devel - Change to correct group - Include doc section
Release: 1%{?dist} %changelog * Thu Oct 11 2012 Peter V. Saveliev peet@redhat.com 0.2.3-1 - initial RH build
- MD5-sum check differs ------------- http://peet.spb.ru/archives/pyvfs-0.2.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : fa629cf0d5c72cf0475d330d64260103c167ac126$ CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 18801e743f3d3c30ebe444c29dc2ed77ff926d3d3$
Please use wget -N for downloading the sources
Please fix this issues and I do the formal review
Best Regards
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865630
--- Comment #8 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemaster@gmail.com --- Sorry error in copy/paste:
Example:
Release: 2%{?dist} %changelog * Thu Oct 13 2012 Peter V. Saveliev peet@redhat.com 0.2.3-2 - Add build section - Change BuildRequires python2-devel - Change to correct group - Include doc section
Release: 1%{?dist} %changelog * Thu Oct 11 2012 Peter V. Saveliev peet@redhat.com 0.2.3-1 - initial RH build
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865630
--- Comment #9 from Saveliev Peter peet@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #7) <skip />
some comments:
- It is good practice to use macros to preserve the name of the application
It is a great idea, 'cause almost all my projects on github use the same naming (and package naming) scheme. Thanks, fixed all through the spec, including URL (just 'cause I said before)
<skip />
- Remember to increase the release number each time you make a change in
spec and Changelog
Surely, but I didn't this only 'cause there was yet no RH release at all, and 'cause in the ticket is written the first (initial) one. But it is no problem, fixed. Please use new urls:
spec: http://peet.spb.ru/archives/python-pyvfs.spec source: http://peet.spb.ru/archives/pyvfs-0.2.3.tar.gz srpm: http://peet.spb.ru/archives/python-pyvfs-0.2.3-2.fc16.src.rpm
<skip />
- MD5-sum check differs
Now they should be the same, I just extracted source tarball back from SRPM :)
<skip />
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865630
Eduardo Echeverria echevemaster@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemaster@gmail.com --- Koji Build Rawhide http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4587693 Koji Build f18 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4587698 Koji Build f17 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4587740 Koji Build f16 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4587755
rpmlint out: rpmlint -v python-pyvfs* python-pyvfs.noarch: I: checking python-pyvfs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US objectfs -> objects, object's, object python-pyvfs.noarch: I: checking-url https://github.com/svinota/pyvfs (timeout 10 seconds) python-pyvfs.src: I: checking python-pyvfs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US objectfs -> objects, object's, object python-pyvfs.src: I: checking-url https://github.com/svinota/pyvfs (timeout 10 seconds) python-pyvfs.src: I: checking-url http://peet.spb.ru/archives/pyvfs-0.2.3.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Package Review ==============
Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [-]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/makerpm/865630-python-pyvfs/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
Python: [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0 (pyvfs-0.2.3.tar.gz) [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-pyvfs-0.2.3-2.fc17.src.rpm python-pyvfs-0.2.3-2.fc17.noarch.rpm python-pyvfs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US objectfs -> objects, object's, object python-pyvfs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US objectfs -> objects, object's, object 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-pyvfs python-pyvfs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US objectfs -> objects, object's, object 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- python-pyvfs-0.2.3-2.fc17.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
python(abi) = 2.7
Provides -------- python-pyvfs-0.2.3-2.fc17.noarch.rpm:
python-pyvfs = 0.2.3-2.fc17
MD5-sum check ------------- http://peet.spb.ru/archives/pyvfs-0.2.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 01fc93717ac1fcdff83155d6f0c800adb76c0e3f0b995c7ac807190a607fec09 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 01fc93717ac1fcdff83155d6f0c800adb76c0e3f0b995c7ac807190a607fec09
----------------
PACKAGE APPROVED
----------------
Saveliev, you can now proceed to request a repository: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865630
Saveliev Peter peet@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #11 from Saveliev Peter peet@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-pyvfs Short Description: Simple python VFS library Owners: psavelye Branches: f16 f17 f18 el6 InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865630
--- Comment #12 from Saveliev Peter peet@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-pyvfs Short Description: Simple python VFS library Owners: psavelye Branches: f16 f17 f18 el6 InitialCC: echevemaster
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865630
--- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865630
Saveliev Peter peet@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2012-11-07 12:12:40
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org