[Bug 446989] Review Request: python-epsilon - A small utility package that depends on tools too recent for Twisted

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Dec 20 19:49:39 UTC 2008


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=446989





--- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2008-12-20 14:49:37 EDT ---
Sorry for not getting back to this earlier; there are so many packages to look
at.

You linked to the wrong srpm above; I've found the right one.

I guess when following those packaging guidelines you didn't look at the whole
set of examples.  Unless you have some specific reason for using the most
verbose and complicated means of constructing your %files list, why not just
use the simple one?  I mean, you entire %files list could be the following:
  %files
  %defattr(-,root,root,-)
  %doc README LICENSE NAME.txt NEWS.txt
  %{python_sitelib}/*

rpmlint says:
  python-epsilon.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs
   (spaces: line 7, tab: line 16)
I don't think this is a particularly big issue; fix it if you like.

Not that it matters much, but you can do without dos2unix by simply calling
sed:
  sed -i 's/\r//' NAME.txt

Where did the
  %{?!python:%define python python}
along with all of the %{python} macro usage come from?  I'm having a tough time
understanding why you would want that.  I guess it would be useful if we had
multiple python versions in the distro at once and you want to build
python3-epsilon, except that everyone's been adamant that will not happen. 
Given that, it just seems like noise.

I note that several of the source files carry no licensing information. 
Upstream should be prodded to put that information on every source file.

I note that the tarball downloaded from the Source0: URL does not match what
you have in this package.  Any reason why there's a difference?

Only the last issue is an absolute blocker, but the specfile cleanliness stuff
(needlessly complex %files list, pointless %{python} macro) are things that
someone else might approve, but because I'm a fan of using the minimum amount
of spec file to do the job, I won't personally accept them.  There's a really
nice python package template in /etc/rpmdevtools/spectemplate-python.spec
which, once it's adapted, makes a nice minimal python spec file, and that's the
kind of spec file that I personally like to see.  So I'm going to leave this
review for someone else to look at.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.




More information about the package-review mailing list