[Bug 840171] New: Review Request: python-django-recaptcha-works - Django module for integrate the reCaptcha service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840171
Bug ID: 840171 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-django-recaptcha-works - Django module for integrate the reCaptcha service Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: kumarpraveen.nitdgp@gmail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora
Spec URL: http://kumarpraveen.fedorapeople.org/recaptcha-works/python-django-recaptcha... SRPM URL: http://kumarpraveen.fedorapeople.org/recaptcha-works/python-django-recaptcha... Description: python-django-recaptcha-works provides a Django form field that integrates the reCaptcha service. Fedora Account System Username: kumarpraveen
Koji build : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4239356
Note : This is package rename request.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840171
Praveen Kumar kumarpraveen.nitdgp@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |736776
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840171
Praveen Kumar kumarpraveen.nitdgp@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mrunge@matthias-runge.de
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840171
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Runge mrunge@matthias-runge.de --- Ok, I'm a little astonished, this review is assigned to me....
Some drive by comments: - obsoletes and latest version don't fit together: you're obsoleting your latest version. There are two mistakes: Your version should read 0.3.4-3, AND your packaged version should be 0.3.4-3, too. It's not a problem, to start with a release -3. - you should correct the changelog, too. - do you have a small test application? This software is basically from 2010, django-1.4.1 is a major upgrade and introduces some incompatible changes to prior versions.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840171
--- Comment #2 from Praveen Kumar kumarpraveen.nitdgp@gmail.com --- Created attachment 605975 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=605975&action=edit sample example for django-recaptcha-works to test compatiablity with django>=1.4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840171
--- Comment #3 from Praveen Kumar kumarpraveen.nitdgp@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #1)
Ok, I'm a little astonished, this review is assigned to me....
I thought you are take care of all django rename requests, sorry if I misunderstood.
Some drive by comments:
- obsoletes and latest version don't fit together: you're obsoleting your
latest version. There are two mistakes: Your version should read 0.3.4-3, AND your packaged version should be 0.3.4-3, too. It's not a problem, to start with a release -3.
- you should correct the changelog, too.
Done
- do you have a small test application? This software is basically from
2010, django-1.4.1 is a major upgrade and introduces some incompatible changes to prior versions.
Attached a sample code tested with django-1.4
Updated SPEC: http://kumarpraveen.fedorapeople.org/recaptcha-works/python-django-recaptcha... SRPM : http://kumarpraveen.fedorapeople.org/recaptcha-works/python-django-recaptcha...
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4410423
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840171
Matthias Runge mrunge@matthias-runge.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 from Matthias Runge mrunge@matthias-runge.de --- Great!
To try the test app, I just created python-django-bootstrap-toolkit: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850548 Maybe, you'll do a review?
Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated
==== Generic ==== [x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [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 Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package [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 Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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. [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)" For detailed output of licensecheck see file: /home/mrunge/review/840171-python-django-recaptcha-works/licensecheck.txt [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters. [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Package is not relocatable. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [x]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [x]: 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. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0 (django-recaptcha-works-0.3.4.tar.gz) [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: 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.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-django-recaptcha-works-0.3.4-3.fc19.src.rpm python-django-recaptcha-works-0.3.4-3.fc19.noarch.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- python-django-recaptcha-works-0.3.4-3.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
python(abi) = 2.7
Provides -------- python-django-recaptcha-works-0.3.4-3.fc19.noarch.rpm:
django-recaptcha-works = 0.3.4-3.fc19 python-django-recaptcha-works = 0.3.4-3.fc19
MD5-sum check ------------- http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/d/django-recaptcha-works/django-recap... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 92e51a63474184598dde637e1d0e300f3a1ac264b0f85506a5c129aae1b30f7c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 92e51a63474184598dde637e1d0e300f3a1ac264b0f85506a5c129aae1b30f7c
Generated by fedora-review 0.2.2 (9f8c0e5) last change: 2012-08-09 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 840171
One issue left: you should remove compile flags (because noarch does not depend on compile flags)
%build %{__python} setup.py build
I guess, that can be done during import.
Package APPROVED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840171
Matthias Runge mrunge@matthias-runge.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840171
Praveen Kumar kumarpraveen.nitdgp@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #5 from Praveen Kumar kumarpraveen.nitdgp@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-django-recaptcha-works Short Description: Django module for integrate the reCaptcha service Owners: kumarpraveen Branches: f18 devel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840171
--- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840171
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840171
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-django-recaptcha-works-0.3.4-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-django-recaptcha-works-0.3.4-...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840171
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-django-recaptcha-works-0.3.4-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840171
--- Comment #9 from Matthias Runge mrunge@redhat.com --- What's the status here? That package hasn't been submitted to stable, please do so!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840171
Praveen Kumar kumarpraveen.nitdgp@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed| |2012-10-02 10:58:28
--- Comment #10 from Praveen Kumar kumarpraveen.nitdgp@gmail.com --- Pushed to stable repo.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840171
Matthias Runge mrunge@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|NOTABUG |CURRENTRELEASE
--- Comment #11 from Matthias Runge mrunge@redhat.com --- Thanks!
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla