[Bug 659663] Review Request: python-netcf - python binding for netcf

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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=659663

--- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin at tummy.com> 2010-12-18 15:46:13 EST ---
Package Review
==============

Key:
ok = item checks out ok. 
ISSUE = Problem, see issues at the bottom. 

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===

ok  Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. 
ok  Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
ok  Spec file is legible and written in American English.
ok  Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
ok  Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded directory names.
ok  Package consistently uses macros.
ok  Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
ok  PreReq is not used.
ISSUE  Requires correct, justified where necessary.
ISSUE  All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
ok  Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)) or not present
ok  Package run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) and the beginning of
%install.
ok  Package use %makeinstall only when ``make install DESTDIR=...'' doesn't
work.
ok  Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
ok  Changelog in prescribed format.
ISSUE  Rpmlint output
ok  License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
ok  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.
ok  License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
ok  Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
ok  Sources contain only permissible code or content.
ISSUE  Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
 THIS PACKAGE: ec01408dc9175858d70f586e95494992  python-netcf-0.1.0.tar.gz
 UPSTREAM TAR: ?

ISSUE  Compiler flags are appropriate.
ok  Package must own all directories that it creates.
ok  Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
ok  Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
ok  Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
ok  Permissions on files are set properly.
ok  Each %files section contains %defattr.
ok  Package contains code, or permissable content.
ok  File names are valid UTF-8.
ok  Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
ok  Package contains no bundled libraries.
ok  Package does not generate any conflict.
ok  Package does not contains kernel modules.
ok  Package is not relocatable.
ok  Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
ok  Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
ok  Package installs properly.
ok  Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
ok  Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [6]

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
ok  Package functions as described.
ok  Latest version is packaged.
ISSUE  SourceX is a working URL.
ok  Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
ok  Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
ok  Dist tag is present.
ok  Spec use %global instead of %define.
ok  No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
ok  Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.

=== Issues ===
1. (non-blocker): You can remove the first line from the spec (the comment) and 
the line after it, unless you are intending to maintain this in EPEL4/5 too.  

2. (non-blocker): The description doesn't scan very well. Perhaps: 

Python bindings for netcf.

3. (blocker): rpmlint says: 

This seems unavoidable, but you might add a comment to the spec about it: 

python-netcf.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency netcf-libs

Please provide a full/valid Source url. See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL I can't check your upstream
source without a way to download it. 

python-netcf.src: W: invalid-url Source0: python-netcf-0.1.0.tar.gz
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.

4. (blocker): Fix the build section? 
# Remove CFLAGS=... for noarch packages (unneeded) 
no need for CFLAGS for a noarch package. 

5. (non-blocker): I see there is a test file/dir. Would it be possible to add
this 
to a %check section and run there at build time? If so, please do. ;)

-- 
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.