[Bug 691114] Review Request: python-msgpack - A MessagePack (de)serializer

Wed Apr 13 11:28:07 UTC 2011

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=691114

--- Comment #1 from David Robinson <zxvdr.au at gmail.com> 2011-04-13 07:28:06 EDT ---
Hi Fabian,

Just doing an informal review to help my case of being sponsored :-)

The description of the source RPM is wrong. It says:

    Celery is a task queue/job queue based on distributed message
    passing. It is focused on real-time operation, but supports
    scheduling as well.

    The execution units, called tasks, are executed concurrently on a
    single or more worker servers. Tasks can execute asynchronously
    (in the background) or synchronously (wait until ready).

    Celery is already used in production to process millions of tasks
    a day.

But the description in the spec linked to above is correct.

It'd be good if the nosetests provided were run in %check. I had a quick
attempt at making them run but didn't get it working.

The MUST items appear OK to me:

OK: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1]

[zxvdr at laptop SRPMS]$ rpmlint python-msgpack-0.1.9-1.fc14.src.rpm 
python-msgpack.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) serializer -> serialize,
serializes, serialized
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

[zxvdr at laptop x86_64]$ rpmlint python-msgpack-0.1.9-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm 
python-msgpack.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) serializer ->
serialize, serializes, serialized
python-msgpack.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/msgpack/_msgpack.so _msgpack.so()(64bit)
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
[3]
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 must be included in %doc.[4]
OK: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
OK: 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.

[zxvdr at laptop SOURCES]$ wget
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/m/msgpack-python/msgpack-python-0.1.9.tar.gz
-O - | md5sum
--2011-04-13 20:24:55-- 
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/m/msgpack-python/msgpack-python-0.1.9.tar.gz
Resolving pypi.python.org... 82.94.164.168, 2001:888:2000:d::a8
Connecting to pypi.python.org|82.94.164.168|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 42638 (42K) [application/x-gzip]
Saving to: “STDOUT”

100%[=========================================================>] 42,638     
37.1K/s   in 1.1s    

2011-04-13 20:24:57 (37.1 KB/s) - written to stdout [42638/42638]

fea360812fd4bd485c07b03239f1ddd0  -
[zxvdr at laptop SOURCES]$ md5sum msgpack-python-0.1.9.tar.gz 
fea360812fd4bd485c07b03239f1ddd0  msgpack-python-0.1.9.tar.gz

OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. [7]
NA: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
??: 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.

The README states that Cython is required to build msgpack, but the try/except
ImportError in setup.py suggests otherwise. I successfully built the package
both with and without Cython...

NA: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
NA: 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.
OK: A package must own all directories that it creates.
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
OK: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
NA: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application.
NA: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19]
NA: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20]
NA: 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. [19]
NA: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release} [21]
OK: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built.[20]
NA: 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.
OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

The SHOULD's are fine too:

OK: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [25]
NA: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should
contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [26]
OK: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [27]
??: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures. [28]
OK: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package
should not segfault instead of running, for example.

[zxvdr at laptop tmp]$ cat msgpack_test.py 
#!/usr/bin/env python

import msgpack
serialized = msgpack.packb([1,2,3])
print msgpack.unpackb(serialized)

[zxvdr at laptop tmp]$ python msgpack_test.py 
(1, 2, 3)

NA: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and
left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [29]
NA: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using
a fully versioned dependency. [21]
NA: 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. [30]
NA: 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. [31]
OK: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't,
work with upstream to add them where they make sense.[32]

[zxvdr at laptop tmp]$ pydoc msgpack

-- 
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.