Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: fedora-devshell - Fedora Developer's Toolbox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=498371
Summary: Review Request: fedora-devshell - Fedora Developer's Toolbox Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: loupgaroublond@gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://ynemoy.fedorapeople.org/review/fedora-devshell.spec SRPM URL: http://ynemoy.fedorapeople.org/review/fedora-devshell-0.1.0-1.fc10.src.rpm Description:
Fedora Devshell is a developers toolbox for creating packages and developing software for Fedora. It aims to simplify the process of creating and maintaining packages in the Fedora repositories, and simplify the workflow between other Fedora components.
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=498371
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?
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=498371
--- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2009-04-30 16:56:02 EDT --- A few initial comments:
- Don't use macros in the URL, since this makes copy-pasteing impossible (well, at least awkward) from the specfile.
- I see you're also upstream. %attr(755,root,root) %{_bindir}/ports %attr(755,root,root) %{_bindir}/devshell should be just %{_bindir}/ports %{_bindir}/devshell with the 755 flags set by the install script (setup.py).
I'll do the review tomorrow.
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=498371
--- Comment #2 from Yaakov Nemoy loupgaroublond@gmail.com 2009-05-01 00:19:48 EDT --- I just copied that out of another spec file i've seen, i figured it was part of the coding standards. I'm assuming that setup.py should do The Right Thing (TM). If it doesn't, getting upstream to fix that shouldn't have to be considered a blocker to this bug.
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=498371
--- Comment #3 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2009-05-01 03:10:53 EDT --- rpmlint output: fedora-devshell.noarch: E: description-line-too-long Fedora Devshell is a developers toolbox for creating packages and developing software for Fedora. It aims to simplify the process of creating and maintaining packages in the Fedora repositories, and simplify the workflow between other Fedora components. fedora-devshell.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/devshell/devshell.py 0644 fedora-devshell.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/devshell/ports.py 0644 fedora-devshell.src: E: description-line-too-long Fedora Devshell is a developers toolbox for creating packages and developing software for Fedora. It aims to simplify the process of creating and maintaining packages in the Fedora repositories, and simplify the workflow between other Fedora components. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 0 warnings.
- You need to break the description lines to match the 80 character width restricition.
- Either add executable bits to devshell.py and ports.py or remove their shebangs to fix the non-executable-script problem. Python library files should not have shebangs; please contact upstream to remove them.
MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. OK MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. OK 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. NEEDSFIX - License is GPLv2, not GPLv2+.
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. NEEDSFIX - No source URL provided. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. OK MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. OK
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. ~OK - Instead of using %{python_sitelib}/* please use %{python_sitelib}/devshell/ %{python_sitelib}/%{name}-*.egg-info instead, as this is more likely to pick up errors.
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK 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. NEEDSFIX - Add PKG-INFO to %doc.
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. 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=498371
--- Comment #4 from Yaakov Nemoy loupgaroublond@gmail.com 2009-05-01 13:59:52 EDT --- Thanks for taking up the review Jussi.
Spec URL: http://ynemoy.fedorapeople.org/review/fedora-devshell.spec SRPM URL: http://ynemoy.fedorapeople.org/review/fedora-devshell-0.1.1-1.fc10.src.rpm
This release fixes all the above comments.
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=498371
Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2009-05-01 15:39:54 EDT --- So it does. The package has been
APPROVED.
PS. You might still want to remove the hash comment about noarch packages that have been left over from the spec file template.
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=498371
--- Comment #6 from Yaakov Nemoy loupgaroublond@gmail.com 2009-05-01 18:45:40 EDT --- You mean the remark on the first line? I've seen that in other packages as well, so i'm not really gonna bother.
Thanks again for the speedy review.
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=498371
Yaakov Nemoy loupgaroublond@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #7 from Yaakov Nemoy loupgaroublond@gmail.com 2009-05-01 18:48:13 EDT --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: fedora-devshell Short Description: Fedora Developer's Toolbox Owners: ynemoy Branches: F-10 F-11 InitialCC:
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=498371
--- Comment #8 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2009-05-02 03:00:36 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6)
You mean the remark on the first line? I've seen that in other packages as well, so i'm not really gonna bother.
Yeah, and in the files section. It's not really a problem, it's just not necessary to have it :)
Thanks again for the speedy review.
No problem. You can return the favor by reviewing other packages in the queue, there are lots of them waiting.
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=498371
Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--- Comment #9 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2009-05-03 23:47:37 EDT --- cvs 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=498371
Yaakov Nemoy loupgaroublond@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
--- Comment #10 from Yaakov Nemoy loupgaroublond@gmail.com 2009-05-04 00:32:35 EDT --- Updated and built.
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=100713
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla