[Bug 560457] Review Request: pyutil - A collection of mature utilities for Python programmers

Mon Feb 1 17:24:11 UTC 2010

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=560457

Thomas Moulard <thomas.moulard at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |thomas.moulard at gmail.com

--- Comment #1 from Thomas Moulard <thomas.moulard at gmail.com> 2010-02-01 12:24:05 EST ---
Note: I am not an official Fedora reviewer, so this is only a pre-review.

# MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be
   posted in the review.

OK
$ rpmlint -i SRPMS/pyutil-1.6.1-1.fc13.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

# MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
  Guidelines.

OK

# MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
  format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .

OK

# MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.

OK:
- python_sitelib correctly detected

Python egg:
* Must: Python eggs must be built from source. They cannot simply drop an egg
from upstream into the proper directory.

OK

* Must: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.

?? Did not succeed to resolve the mutual dependency between pyutil and
python-zbase32 so it did download python-zbase32 from the net. I guess it will
not happen if both packages are accepted.

* Must: If egg-info files are generated by the modules build scripts they must
be included in the package.

OK

* Must: When building a compat package, it must install using easy_install -m
so it won't conflict with the main package.

N/A

* Must: When building multiple versions (for a compat package) one of the
packages must contain a default version that is usable via "import MODULE" with
no prior setup.

N/A

* Should: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface
should provide egg info.

N/A

# MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .

OK (GPLv2+)

# MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the
  actual license. [3]

OK (see COPYING.GPL)

# 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]

OK (COPYING.GPL in %doc)

# MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]

OK

# MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]

OK

# 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.

OK

# MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary
  rpms on at least one primary architecture. [7]

OK (noarch package)

# 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. [8]

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.

Sounds OK for me, but I do not know Python enough be sure at 100% that
all imports are standards ones.

# MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by
  using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
  forbidden.[9]

N/A

# 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]

N/A

# MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]

OK

# 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. [12]

OK

# 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. [13]

OK

# MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. [14]

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. [15]

OK

# MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
  %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [16]

OK

# MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [17]

OK

# MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [18]

OK

# 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). [19]

OK

# 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. [19]

N/A

# MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [20]

N/A

# MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [21]

N/A

# MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires:
  pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [22]

N/A

# 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. [20]

N/A

# MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the
  base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
  %{version}-%{release} [23]

N/A

# MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must
  be removed in the spec if they are built.[21]

N/A

# 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. [24]

N/A

# 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. [25]

# MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
  %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [26]

OK

# MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [27]

OK (ASCII only)

#  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. [28]

N/A

# SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should
contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [29]

N/A

# SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [30]

?? Will not work due to mutual dependencies with python-zbase32. Anyway to do
handle that?

# SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures. [31]

N/A (noarch)

# SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.

Not trivially broken :)

# SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague,
and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [32]

OK

# SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency. [23]

OK

# SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and
this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg.
A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not
installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [22]

OK

# SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file
instead of the file itself. [33]

OK

# SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it
doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.[34]

?? What are the binaries for? Examples? If it is so, should not it be better
to avoid generic names such as lines or unsort?

Nothing blocker for me, but additional insights for eventual Python Eggs issues
would help.

-- 
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.