[Bug 634700] Review Request: python3-cairo - cairo python bindings for Python 3

Wed Sep 22 16:17:27 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=634700

--- Comment #18 from Dave Malcolm <dmalcolm at redhat.com> 2010-09-22 12:17:26 EDT ---
Thanks!  Mostly looking good, but there are a few specific things that ought to
be fixed.

=== "MUST" items that need work ===
(Please do bump the release number when fixing these!)

> 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]

You've done this for the main package, but I believe you need a duplicate copy
of these licenses in the "devel" subpackage as well.

> MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries

The upstream tarball embeds a copy of "waf" for use during the build, but "waf"
is packaged within Fedora.

Is it possible to use the system copy of "waf"?  Please try removing the
embedded copy of "waf" in the %prep and add a:
  BuildRequires: waf
and you'll need to change all the references to "./waf" in the specfile
accordingly.

There was some discussion of this here:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2009-February/005722.html
has some notes on this.

> 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]

and

> 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. [23]

Is this directory also used by the python 2 package?
  %{_includedir}/pycairo/

Looks like it might be tricky to fix whilst staying close to upstream's intent.

> MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
You use %{optflags} in one place, and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in others.  To be
nitpicking, this appears to be a violation of:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros
IMHO of minimal benefit, but please fix it when fixing the other issues.

=== Other notes ===
(i) Please can you file a bug usptream about the PyCObject issue mentioned in
comment #2 and comment #4 (and add a URL here)?  I hope to rebase us to
python-3.2 in Fedora 15, and the latest 3.2a2 removes this deprecated API,
which would lead to a FTBFS.
  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Python_3.2

(ii) The "doc" directory does contain rst documentation, along with
instructions for building it to html.  I don't think that doing so is a blocker
for review, perhaps an RFE for further work.

=== "MUST" items that are OK ===
> MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
> the review.[1]
OK

> MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
The guidelines say: "So all python3 modules MUST have python3 in their name.
Other than that, the module must be in the same format as the python2 package."

The python 2 package is currently named "pycairo", but upstream now reserve
that name for python 3 (whether or not this was a good idea by upstream is not
relevant here).

Python 2 guidelines say "When in doubt, use the name of the module that you
type to import it in a script.", which in this case is "cairo"

Hence I feel that the name "python3-cairo" is acceptable.

> 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

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

Tarball includes COPYING and COPYING.lesser (GPLv3 and LGPLv3)

The README states:
> Pycairo is free software and is available to be redistributed and/or modified
> under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License version 3 (LGPLv3).

Copyright headers in the package refer to the LGPLv3

I'm not sure why the COPYING is present; do you know why?

> MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
> license.
OK

> 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:

$ md5sum pycairo-1.8.10.tar.bz2
python3-cairo-1.8.10-1.fc13.src/pycairo-1.8.10.tar.bz2 
ddc544943d791e3c22ca8f019e10e1e3  pycairo-1.8.10.tar.bz2
ddc544943d791e3c22ca8f019e10e1e3 
python3-cairo-1.8.10-1.fc13.src/pycairo-1.8.10.tar.bz2

> MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
> least one primary architecture.
OK (see scratch builds)

> MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an...
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.
(assumed correct, given the Koji scratch build; but see the note on "waf"
above)

> 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]
OK; the DSO is a python module

>  MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
N/A

> MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
> file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
> situations)
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: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
OK

> MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
Should the examples be moved to the -devel subpackage?  I'm not sure on this
one.

> 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]
OK.

> MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20]
N/A

> MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix
> (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1)...
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} [21]
OK

> MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
> removed in the spec if they are built.[20]
OK

> MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop...
N/A

> MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [24]
OK

-- 
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.