[Bug 487098] Review Request: Djblets - A collection of useful classes and functions for Django
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed May 13 19:47:46 UTC 2009
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=487098
--- Comment #8 from Dave Malcolm <dmalcolm at redhat.com> 2009-05-13 15:47:43 EDT ---
Scratch build performed in koji:
$ koji build --scratch dist-f12 python-djblets-0.5-0.2.rc1.fc11.src.rpm
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1353465
I worked through http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines:
Summary is that we may need to clarify the licensing of the package; otherwise
everything looks good to me.
Details follow:
* MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted
in the review:
Clean, with rpmlint-0.85-2.fc10.noarch
* MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines .
Yes, python module for import as "djblets" hence "python-djblets"
* MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption:
Yes, they match
* MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines:
Appears correct; the Changelog format error is minor, and preserving
history seems more important
* MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines .
* MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. [3]
* 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 must be included in %doc.[4]
http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/wiki/Djblets states "Djblets is under
the MIT license.", however, there is no license file within the upstream
tarball. Not all of the files in the upstream tarball carry a license header,
though all that do that contain a "copyright" do contain an MIT-style license
grant.
Does upstream need to explicitly include a license file in the tarball?
In addition, the package contains an embedded copy of jquery, which is
MIT/GPL dual license (installed below
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/djblets/media/js/ )
This isn't a path conflict, merely a duplication of content. My
understanding is that Fedora' guidelines for JS packaging aren't yet decided on
this issue. My own feeling is that it's acceptable: the upstream have done
their compatibility testing against this version of the library, and have
written some URL logic to handle cache-correctness using it.
* MUST: The spec file must be written in American English:
Yes
* MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible:
Yes
* MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
MD5 sum from http://downloads.review-board.org/releases/Djblets-0.5rc1.tar.gz:
10b611756e1cbe03bfe35ab13b19638b Djblets-0.5rc1.tar.gz
MD5 sum from SRPM:
10b611756e1cbe03bfe35ab13b19638b Djblets-0.5rc1.tar.gz
* MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture:
Yes, see scratch build.
* MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
N/A
* MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
Yes
* MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
No translations
* MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]
Not applicable
* MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker. [11]
Not applicable
* MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory. [12]
Looks good
* MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. [13]
OK
* MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be
set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include
a %defattr(...) line. [14]
defattr present
* MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [15]
clean present and correct.
* MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
Appears sane. Uses %define, but I don't think that's ruled a blocker yet.
* MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
Code
* MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [18]
Not applicable.
* MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must
run properly if it is not present. [18]
OK
* MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19]
Not applicable.
* MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20]
Not applicable.
* MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability). [21]
Not applicable.
* MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package. [19]
Not applicable.
* MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release} [22]
Not applicable.
* MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.[20]
Not applicable.
* MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need
a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
[23]
Not applicable.
* MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with
any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you
feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another
package owns, then please present that at package review time. [24]
See notes on javascript above.
* MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [25]
It does.
* MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [26]
Appears correct.
--
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