[Bug 655527] Review Request: pyside-tools - Development tools for PySide

[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=655527

Steve Traylen <steve.traylen at cern.ch> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |steve.traylen at cern.ch
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |steve.traylen at cern.ch
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #2 from Steve Traylen <steve.traylen at cern.ch> 2010-11-23 13:21:48 EST ---
rpmlint output.

pyside-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rcc -> cc, rec,
acc
pyside-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uic -> uric, sic,
tic
pyside-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lupdate -> update,
l update, lapidate
pyside-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pyside-uic
pyside-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pyside-rcc
pyside-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pyside-lupdate
pyside-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rcc -> cc, rec, acc
pyside-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uic -> uric, sic, tic
pyside-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lupdate -> update, l
update, lapidate
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.

which is all fine.

- Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
Yes tar ball called pyside-tools
- Spec file matches base package name.
It does.
- Spec has consistant macro usage.
It does.
- Meets Packaging Guidelines.
No, in particular private ElementTree.
- License
GPLv2 and MIT and there is a comment about this duality.
- License field in spec matches
it's GPL3 except element tree, see below.
Also pysideuic appears to be dual GPL and BSD.
- License file included in package
Yes.
- Spec in American English
- Spec is legible.
- Sources match upstream md5sum:
$ curl -q http://www.pyside.org/files/pyside-tools-0.2.2.tar.bz2 | md5sum -
../SOURCES/pyside-tools-0.2.2.tar.bz2 
5fe207cd8cd16ddbb033533fe7528011  -
5fe207cd8cd16ddbb033533fe7528011  ../SOURCES/pyside-tools-0.2.2.tar.bz2
- Package needs ExcludeArch
Builds okay in mock so no.
- BuildRequires correct
Builds in mock and nothing excessive.
- Spec handles locales/find_lang
Nothing to localed
- Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
Not relocatable.
- Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
They are indeed.
- Package has a correct %clean section.
It does.
- Package has correct buildroot
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
Yep.
- Package is code or permissible content.
Yes.
- Doc subpackage needed/used.
Not needed.
- Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
They don't

- Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
Not relavent.
- Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
Not relavent.
- .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig
Not relavent.
- .so files in -devel subpackage.
Not relavent.
- -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
Not relavent.
- .la files are removed.
Not relavent.
- Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
Not relavent.
- Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
Koji build.
- Package has no duplicate files in %files.
Nope.
- Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
Nope.
- Package owns all the directories it creates.
/usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/pysideuic
is owned.
- final provides and requires are sane:
rpm -qp --provides pyside-tools-0.2.2-1.fc13.x86_64.rpm 
pyside-tools = 0.2.2-1.fc13
pyside-tools(x86-64) = 0.2.2-1.fc13

requires are qt libs, and python-abi = 2.6 so fine.


SHOULD Items:

- Should build in mock.
Koji build
- Should build on all supported archs
Koji build
- Should function as described.
- Should have sane scriptlets.
- Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.
- Should have dist tag
- Should package latest version
- check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews)

Issues:

1.   pysideuic/elementtree/ElementTree.py at a quick look to looks to be a copy
of 
     $ rpm -qf /usr/lib64/python2.6/xml/etree/ElementTree.py
python-2.6.4-27.fc13.x86_64

      Can the private copy be removed and this also would allow you to drop a
license maybe.

2. It seems the pysideuic is BSD as well. Can this be reflected in the License
tag.

     I might worth a comment stating which part of the code is LICENSE-rcc and
which
     is LICENSE-uic.

     Of course this could be split into subpackages with different licenses
which I believe
     is the recommended way in the guidelines.

-- 
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.