[Bug 593839] Review Request: urwid - Console user interface library

Thu May 20 17:45:03 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=593839

--- Comment #7 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> 2010-05-20 13:44:59 EDT ---
REVIEW:

Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

First, I would like to point out that package cannot be built on F-11/12 (and
EPEL 4/5) due to missing %{python_sitearch} definition on these platforms. So
you should keep this in mind while requesting cvs branches.

Also, I after the Chen Lei would like to see this package renamed to
python-urwid. You may add additional "Provides: urwid = %{version}-%{release}"
also.

- rpmlint is NOT silent:

Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../RPMS/ppc/urwid-*
urwid.ppc: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US resizing -> residing, re
sizing, re-sizing
urwid.ppc: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US encodings -> encoding,
encoding s, encodes
urwid.ppc: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/urwid/container.py 0644 /usr/bin/python
urwid.ppc: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/urwid/listbox.py 0644 /usr/bin/python
urwid.ppc: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/urwid/escape.py 0644 /usr/bin/python
urwid.ppc: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/urwid/split_repr.py 0644 /usr/bin/python
urwid.ppc: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/urwid/signals.py 0644 /usr/bin/python
urwid.ppc: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/urwid/util.py 0644 /usr/bin/python
urwid.ppc: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/urwid/command_map.py 0644 /usr/bin/python
urwid.ppc: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/urwid/display_common.py 0644 /usr/bin/python
urwid.ppc: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/urwid/monitored_list.py 0644 /usr/bin/python
urwid.ppc: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/urwid/__init__.py 0644 /usr/bin/python
urwid.ppc: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/urwid/old_str_util.py 0644 /usr/bin/python
urwid.ppc: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/urwid/canvas.py 0644 /usr/bin/python
urwid.ppc: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/urwid/main_loop.py 0644 /usr/bin/python
urwid.ppc: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/urwid/curses_display.py 0644 /usr/bin/python
urwid.ppc: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/urwid/font.py 0644 /usr/bin/python
urwid.ppc: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/urwid/text_layout.py 0644 /usr/bin/python
urwid.ppc: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/urwid/html_fragment.py 0644 /usr/bin/python
urwid.ppc: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/urwid/raw_display.py 0644 /usr/bin/python
urwid.ppc: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/urwid/graphics.py 0644 /usr/bin/python
urwid.ppc: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/urwid/web_display.py 0644 /usr/bin/python
urwid.ppc: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/urwid/wimp.py 0644 /usr/bin/python
urwid.ppc: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/urwid/widget.py 0644 /usr/bin/python
urwid.ppc: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/urwid/decoration.py 0644 /usr/bin/python
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 23 errors, 2 warnings.
Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS:

This line can help suppressing most of these messages

find urwid -type f -name "*.py" -exec sed -i '/^#!\/usr\/bin\/python/d' {} \;

and this one - fixes permissions:
find urwid -type f -name "*.py" -exec chmod 644 {} \;

However I'm not aware of initial intention - it seems that many of these *.py
sources may be used as simple scripts while testing (just grep for __main__ and
see the results). We still don't use %check rpm target very often, so I'm
leaving this up to David to decide what to do with these files and rpmlint
errors. 

The former two rpmlint warnings should be omitted, obviously.

- The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. See
Chen Lei's comment #5 .
- The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec. the same as above.

+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines .
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines .
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license
(LGPLv2+).
0 The package doesn't include the text of the license(s) in its own file.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.

Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum urwid-0.9.9.1.tar.gz*
81c95440f84a90872d5bd8f01bc507cd0e5e1ce67a878a62cb435a662e43d5a5 
urwid-0.9.9.1.tar.gz
81c95440f84a90872d5bd8f01bc507cd0e5e1ce67a878a62cb435a662e43d5a5 
urwid-0.9.9.1.tar.gz.1
Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES:

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture (my ppc - still primary for F-12).
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's
default paths.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
+ The package is not designed to be relocatable
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.

+/- Permissions on files must be set properly. See my comments about shebang
and file permissions above.

+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No C/C++ header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 The package does not contain library files with a suffix.
0 No devel sub-package.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives,
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ All filenames in the package are valid UTF-8.

Almost finished. Please, rename package (consider adding additional provides
also) and comment my remarks about rpmlint warning and file permissions, and
I'll continue.

-- 
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.