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/show_bug.cgi?id=454921
Summary: Review Request: pydotconf - python parser for dot.conf file Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: goyal.hemant@gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,notting@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://www.nsitonline.in/hemant/stuff/pydotconf/rpm/pydotconf.spec SRPM URL: http://www.nsitonline.in/hemant/stuff/pydotconf/rpm/pydotconf-0.1-1.src.rpm Description: python parser for dot.conf file
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: pydotconf - python parser for dot.conf file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454921
------- Additional Comments From kylev@kylev.com 2008-07-10 16:07 EST ------- At a glance you're going to need to change your spec quite a bit. Please refer to the packaging guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python
In particular, don't include a Vendor, don't define things like name and version needlessly, Source0 should be an URL, URL should be the package's home page, and the package needs to be named python-pydotconf.
(Not to mention that putting "py" in the name of your python library is a bit silly. Why not just name it dotconf? Also, you should consider reading PEP-8 and just rolling everything into a single dotconf.py instead of a directory... it's only about 350 lines.)
You should also install the rpmdevtools RPM and use the "rpmdev-newspec -t python" to generate a python-esque base .spec file.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: pydotconf - python parser for dot.conf file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454921
------- Additional Comments From goyal.hemant@gmail.com 2008-07-11 15:24 EST ------- Hi Kyle,
Thanks for the review.
SPEC URL : http://www.nsitonline.in/hemant/stuff/python-dotconf/rpm/python-dotconf.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.nsitonline.in/hemant/stuff/python-dotconf/rpm/python-dotconf-0.2-...
In particular, don't include a Vendor, don't define things like name and
version, needlessly, Source0 should be an URL, URL should be the package's home page, and the package needs to be named python-pydotconf.
Yes this was my mistake, I directly worked on the SPEC generated by disutils bdist command. I have use the rpmdev (python) SPEC template now.
(Not to mention that putting "py" in the name of your python library is a bit silly. Why not just name it dotconf? Also, you should consider reading PEP-8 and just rolling everything into a single dotconf.py instead of a directory... it's only about 350 lines.)
Hmmm, thanks for the idea. I ve merged the two files into dotconf.py now. Are you also suggesting that I do not include the file in a directory like dotconf?
Thanks, Hemant
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: pydotconf - python parser for dot.conf file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454921
------- Additional Comments From goyal.hemant@gmail.com 2008-07-16 01:10 EST ------- Hi,
Package Updated.
SPEC URL : http://www.nsitonline.in/hemant/stuff/python-dotconf/rpm/python-dotconf.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.nsitonline.in/hemant/stuff/python-dotconf/rpm/python-dotconf-0.2-...
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: pydotconf - python parser for dot.conf file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454921
------- Additional Comments From goyal.hemant@gmail.com 2008-07-17 08:08 EST ------- Hi,
Package Updated.
SPEC URL : http://www.nsitonline.in/hemant/stuff/python-dotconf/rpm/python-dotconf.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.nsitonline.in/hemant/stuff/python-dotconf/rpm/python-dotconf-0.2-...
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: pydotconf - python parser for dot.conf file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454921
mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review?
------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-07-17 10:29 EST ------- Would you review my review request (bug 453944) instread? (note that scratch builds posted on the bug are now out of date)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: pydotconf - python parser for dot.conf file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454921
------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-07-17 10:42 EST ------- Currently dist-f10 python is completely broken so please wait...
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: pydotconf - python parser for dot.conf file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454921
------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-07-17 12:16 EST ------- BTW
* Your latest package does not build on dist-f9-updates-candidate: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=722566 egg info is created on F-9/devel (I forgot for F-8)
* Currently all branches are >= F-8 and %if 0%{?fedora} >= 8 is of no sense (unless you are thinking of OLPC branch)
* Currently no issue (as they are same), however would you clarify this package is GPLv3 or GPLv3+?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: pydotconf - python parser for dot.conf file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454921
------- Additional Comments From goyal.hemant@gmail.com 2008-07-18 04:57 EST ------- Hi Mamoru,
Thanks for the review.
Package Updated.
SPEC URL : http://www.nsitonline.in/hemant/stuff/python-dotconf/rpm/python-dotconf.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.nsitonline.in/hemant/stuff/python-dotconf/rpm/python-dotconf-0.2-...
(In reply to comment #7)
BTW
- Your latest package does not build on dist-f9-updates-candidate: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=722566 egg info is created on F-9/devel (I forgot for F-8)
It just did not strike me to scratch build on koji myself.
dist-f9 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=723978
dist-f10 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=723983
dist-f8 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=723982
dist-olpc3 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=723985
- Currently all branches are >= F-8 and %if 0%{?fedora} >= 8 is of no sense (unless you are thinking of OLPC branch)
Yes I will be requesting an OLPC branch. However I have fixed it as follows
%if 1%{?olpc} BuildRequires: python-setuptools-devel %else BuildRequires: python-setuptools %endif
- Currently no issue (as they are same), however would you clarify this package is GPLv3 or GPLv3+?
Thanks for checking this up. The license should have been GPLv3+. I have fixed this now, however it will not be reflected in the SRPM built on koji scratch build. I have made the requisite fix in the SPEC that that I have uploaded.
Thanks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: pydotconf - python parser for dot.conf file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454921
------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-07-18 09:10 EST ------- Well,
* Duplicate files ----------------------------------------------------------------------- %dir %{python_sitelib}/dotconf %{python_sitelib}/* ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Now the directory %{python_sitelib}/dotconf is listed twice.
* %if 1%{?olpc} This is always true.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: pydotconf - python parser for dot.conf file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454921
------- Additional Comments From kylev@kylev.com 2008-07-18 16:16 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2)
Hmmm, thanks for the idea. I ve merged the two files into dotconf.py now. Are you also suggesting that I do not include the file in a directory like dotconf?
Yes, at this point there seems little reason to have a package directory since it's just one file. Move all the code into a dotconf.py file and out of the subdirectory, delete and use the "py_modules" parameter in your setup.py:
http://docs.python.org/dist/listing-modules.html
Additionally, please start creating tags in your google code svn repository. We'd like to see things a little more professionally versioned.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: pydotconf - python parser for dot.conf file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454921
------- Additional Comments From goyal.hemant@gmail.com 2008-07-20 08:53 EST ------- Thanks for the review.
Package Updated.
SPEC URL : http://www.nsitonline.in/hemant/stuff/python-dotconf/rpm/python-dotconf.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.nsitonline.in/hemant/stuff/python-dotconf/rpm/python-dotconf-0.2-...
@Kyle : Great I did not know about the concept of tagging until now :). I've created the tags in the google SVN now. I've also moved dotconf.py out of the directory and used py_modules parameter.
Thanks.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: pydotconf - python parser for dot.conf file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454921
------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-07-20 12:12 EST ------- Did you change the tarball in the srpm without changing version? (As you seem to be the upstream) please change the version and release the new one formally if you want to change the tarball itself.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: pydotconf - python parser for dot.conf file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454921
------- Additional Comments From goyal.hemant@gmail.com 2008-07-23 07:08 EST ------- Hi, I have changed the version of the tarball.
SPEC URL : http://www.nsitonline.in/hemant/stuff/python-dotconf/rpm/python-dotconf.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.nsitonline.in/hemant/stuff/python-dotconf/rpm/python-dotconf-0.2....
Thanks, Hemant
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: python-dotconf - Parser for dot.conf file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454921
mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: pydotconf - |Review Request: python- |python parser for dot.conf |dotconf - Parser for |file |dot.conf file Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-07-24 01:11 EST ------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This package (python-dotconf) is APPROVED by me ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: python-dotconf - Parser for dot.conf file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454921
goyal.hemant@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
------- Additional Comments From goyal.hemant@gmail.com 2008-07-24 03:04 EST ------- Thanks Mamoru :)
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: python-dotconf Short Description: python parser for dot.conf file Owners: hemantg Branches: OLPC-2 OLPC-3 F-8 F-9 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: python-dotconf - Parser for dot.conf file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454921
kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2008-07-24 14:12 EST ------- cvs done.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: python-dotconf - Parser for dot.conf file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454921
goyal.hemant@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
------- Additional Comments From goyal.hemant@gmail.com 2008-08-01 05:39 EST ------- Thank you for the CVS creation and the review.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org