[Bug 1204447] New: Review Request: python-geoip-geolite2 - GeoIP database access for Python under a BSD license
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204447
Bug ID: 1204447 Summary: Review Request: python-geoip-geolite2 - GeoIP database access for Python under a BSD license Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: williamjmorenor@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/python-geoip-geolite2.spec SRPM URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/python-geoip-geolite2-2015.0... Description: GeoIP database access for Python under a BSD license Fedora Account System Username: williamjmorenor
Rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9294343 Epel7: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9294345
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204447
Julien Enselme jujens@jujens.eu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |jujens@jujens.eu Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jujens@jujens.eu
--- Comment #1 from Julien Enselme jujens@jujens.eu --- Hi,
Here are some preliminary remarks:
- The github link you provide are for tow packages: python-geoip and python-geopip-geolite2. From the name of your package, I guess you want to package the latter. If so, I think you should use pypi to get the tarballs available at: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/python-geoip-geolite2/2015.0303 - If you want to package both, please create two separate packages - The changelog is incorrect. The release number is part of the "date line". - In the %file section, you use %{python2_sitelib}/*. This is too broad, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Files_to_include
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204447
--- Comment #2 from William Moreno williamjmorenor@gmail.com --- Hello!
Thanks for the comment.
I change the source from github to pypi, the pypi source contains a GeoLite2-City.mmdb file than is the database of IP, without this file the package it is not funtional, this database is licensed under a CC license so con be included in Fedora Repos, can see:http://dev.maxmind.com/ru/geolite2/
I run fedora-review locally without issues
Thanks for that!
This package build both with Python2 and Python3, but there is not python3-GeoIP in repos so only build with Python2.
Rawhide build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9668744
I will keep the %{python2_sitelib}/* to be sure than include the database file with out hard code names.
The changelog is in a permisible format (3rd option):
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs
This section of Guidelines was update early this year
Own fedora-review do not provide issues: This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/makerpm/python-geoip- geolite2/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [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 %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python: [ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#ChangelogsSpec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-geoip-geolite2-2015.0303-1.fc21.noarch.rpm python-geoip-geolite2-2015.0303-1.fc21.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Requires -------- python-geoip-geolite2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-GeoIP
Provides -------- python-geoip-geolite2: python-geoip-geolite2
Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/python-geoip-geolite2/python-geoip... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3562ab598a25c19a62f57a4e00210f9732524c1005343ff4f74a1f0bd412ec98 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3562ab598a25c19a62f57a4e00210f9732524c1005343ff4f74a1f0bd412ec98
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204447
--- Comment #3 from Julien Enselme jujens@jujens.eu --- Can you please post links to the updated SPEC file and SRPM to ease review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204447
--- Comment #4 from William Moreno williamjmorenor@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/python-geoip-geolite2.spec SRPM URL:https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/python-geoip-geolite2-2015.0...
Sorry, this are the updated links.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204447
--- Comment #5 from Julien Enselme jujens@jujens.eu --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/makerpm/python-geoip- geolite2/licensecheck.txt [X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. [X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [X]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [X]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [X]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [X]: Package does not generate any conflict. [X]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [X]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [X]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [X]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [X]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [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 %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python: [X]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [X]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [X]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [X]: Package functions as described. [X]: Latest version is packaged. [X]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#ChangelogsSpec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-geoip-geolite2-2015.0303-1.fc21.noarch.rpm python-geoip-geolite2-2015.0303-1.fc21.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/python-geoip-geolite2/python-geoip... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3562ab598a25c19a62f57a4e00210f9732524c1005343ff4f74a1f0bd412ec98 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3562ab598a25c19a62f57a4e00210f9732524c1005343ff4f74a1f0bd412ec98
Please: 1. Correct the changelog: - No release version for the first entry - Update the release version in the current spec - The version must be on the same line than the date and author - See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs 2. Be more specific in the files you include under %{python2_sitelib}/* (eg use %{python2_sitelib}/_geoip_geolite2/ and %{python2_sitelib}/python_geoip_geolite2*.egg/)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204447
--- Comment #6 from Julien Enselme jujens@jujens.eu --- For your information, a bug asking to update python-GeoIP was filled a while ago: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080885
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204447
--- Comment #7 from William Moreno williamjmorenor@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/python-geoip-geolite2.spec SRPM URL:https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/python-geoip-geolite2-2015.0...
- Bump Release and add more detail to changelog - Be more specific in %%files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204447
Eduardo Mayorga Eduardo.Mayorga914@std.uni.edu.ni changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |Eduardo.Mayorga914@std.uni. | |edu.ni
--- Comment #8 from Eduardo Mayorga Eduardo.Mayorga914@std.uni.edu.ni --- William is right on the changelog format. It was part of a recent revision of the Guidelines. See the last example: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs.
The package looks fine to me.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204447
--- Comment #9 from Julien Enselme jujens@jujens.eu --- @Eduardo: I guess I was stuck with the old version.
- Changelog: OK - %files: almost there. fedora-review spotted a directory without an owner: _geoip_geolite2. You must remove the * after %{python2_sitelib}/_geoip_geolite2/ to add both the directory and its content. Below is the output of fedora-review: [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python2.7/site- packages/_geoip_geolite2 [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python2.7/site- packages/_geoip_geolite2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204447
--- Comment #10 from William Moreno williamjmorenor@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/python-geoip-geolite2.spec SRPM URL:https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/python-geoip-geolite2-2015.0...
- Fix %%files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204447
Julien Enselme jujens@jujens.eu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #11 from Julien Enselme jujens@jujens.eu --- Looks good. Approuved!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204447
--- Comment #12 from William Moreno williamjmorenor@gmail.com --- Thanks for the review :)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204447
William Moreno williamjmorenor@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #13 from William Moreno williamjmorenor@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-geoip-geolite2 Short Description: GeoIP database access for Python under a BSD license Upstream https://pypi.python.org/pypi/python-geoip-geolite2 Owners: williamjmorenor Branches: f20 f21 f22 el6 epel7 InitialCC: williamjmorenor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204447
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204447
--- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204447
William Moreno williamjmorenor@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed| |2015-06-02 12:16:09
--- Comment #15 from William Moreno williamjmorenor@gmail.com --- https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/search/python-geoip-geolite2
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla