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/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193110
Summary: Review Request: python-sexy Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: bugzilla-sink@leemhuis.info ReportedBy: karlthered@gmail.com QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://darkenphoenix.free.fr/RPMS/RPMS/Extras/SPECS/python-sexy.spec SRPM URL: http://darkenphoenix.free.fr/RPMS/RPMS/Extras/SRPMS/python-sexy-0.1.8-1.src.... Description: python bindings to libsexy This is one of my first packages, I need a sponsor
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-sexy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193110
------- Additional Comments From bdpepple@ameritech.net 2006-05-25 09:42 EST ------- Couple of quick notes:
1. Drop the Requires on libsexy, since the soname from the BR on libsexy-devel will pull this in. 2. Drop the BR on python, since you have a BR on python-devel which will pull this in. 3. Look at the python packaging guidelines. A lot of issues with the spec (in particular the %files section) can be fixed with the suggestions from there. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python
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-sexy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193110
------- Additional Comments From karlthered@gmail.com 2006-05-27 09:37 EST ------- Thanks for your pieces of advice. I uploaded new spec and srpm: http://darkenphoenix.free.fr/RPMS/RPMS/Extras/SRPMS/python-sexy-0.1.8-2.src....
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-sexy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193110
cweyl@alumni.drew.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |177841 nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From cweyl@alumni.drew.edu 2006-06-09 21:17 EST ------- Add a block to FE-NEEDSPONSOR, per the initial comment...
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-sexy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193110
tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |177841 nThis| |
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-sexy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193110
kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink@leemhuis.info |kevin@tummy.com OtherBugsDependingO|163776, 177841 |163778 nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2006-08-16 22:23 EST ------- Greetings. Here's a review:
OK - Package name OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. See below - License See below - License field in spec matches See below - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 94273fc16a35123f1d3003f1080bf2c0 sexy-python-0.1.8.tar.gz 94273fc16a35123f1d3003f1080bf2c0 sexy-python-0.1.8.tar.gz.1 See below - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. n/a - Package needs ExcludeArch OK - BuildRequires correct n/a - Spec handles locales/find_lang n/a - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun n/a - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Package is code or permissible content. n/a - -doc subpackage needed/used. n/a - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. n/a - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. n/a - .pc files in -devel subpackage. n/a - .so files in -devel subpackage. n/a - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - .la files are removed. n/a - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. See below - No rpmlint output.
SHOULD Items:
See below - Should include License or ask upstream to include it. See below - Should build in mock.
Issues:
1. The spec says the license is LGPL, but the COPYING file is the GPL, and there's nothing else that says it's LGPL. Can you get upstream to clarify?
2. No need to include the generic INSTALL document. There is no useful information in it.
3. Package doesn't built in mock. Missing BuildRequires: libxml2-devel.
4. python_sitelib isn't used, can remove the first line of the spec where it's defined?
5. rpmlint output:
W: python-sexy setup-not-quiet setup-not-quiet : You should use -q to have a quiet extraction of the source tarball, as this generate useless lines of log ( for buildbot, for example )
(removing FE-NEEDSPONSOR as you were already sponsored in: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193109 )
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-sexy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193110
------- Additional Comments From karlthered@gmail.com 2006-08-17 10:08 EST ------- Hi
* updated spec: http://darkenphoenix.free.fr/RPMS/RPMS/Extras/SPECS/python-sexy.spec * updated srpm: http://darkenphoenix.free.fr/RPMS/RPMS/Extras/SRPMS/python-sexy-0.1.8-1.src.... * Issues: 1/ I send a mail to Christian Hammond and Raphael Slinckx the authors of the bindings to clear that issue. For the moment, the spec says it's GPL waiting sexy-python maintainers answer. 2/ That's OK for me, done. 3/ Tested under Mock: it builds fine now. 4/ That's OK for me, done. 5/ Thank you for the advice. rpmlint output : [build@localhost result]$ rpmlint -i python-sexy-0.1.8-4.i386.rpm [build@localhost result]$
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-sexy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193110
------- Additional Comments From karlthered@gmail.com 2006-08-17 11:10 EST ------- wrong URL for the srpm: http://darkenphoenix.free.fr/RPMS/RPMS/Extras/SRPMS/python-sexy-0.1.8-4.src....
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-sexy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193110
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2006-08-21 14:40 EST ------- Issues 2-5 look good and corrected.
I would prefer to have clarification on the License before approving the package. I would be unfortunate for us to try and distribute it under the wrong license.
Any word from the upstream authors on License issues?
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-sexy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193110
------- Additional Comments From karlthered@gmail.com 2006-08-21 15:22 EST ------- I got an answer from Christian Hammond 08/17 , he thinks that all bindings to libesexy should be licensed under LGPL, but since he doesn't hold copyright on all the code it's up to Raphael Slinckx who still hasn't answered my mail. If he hasn't answered later this week, I'll ping him again.
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-sexy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193110
------- Additional Comments From karlthered@gmail.com 2006-08-24 19:44 EST ------- I've talked to Raphael Slinckx on IRC and he agrees that python-sexy should be under LGPL. I've mailed Christian Hammond in order to update the license file on svn.
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-sexy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193110
kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2006-08-24 21:15 EST ------- Excellent. Thats the last blocker I saw, so this package is APPROVED.
Remember to close this bug with NEXTRELEASE once it's imported and built.
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-sexy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193110
karlthered@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
------- Additional Comments From karlthered@gmail.com 2006-08-26 10:53 EST ------- It has been imported and it builds fine on all supported platforms.
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-sexy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=193110
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla