[Bug 727541] Review Request: comoonics-base-py - base libs for comoonics-cdsl-py and comoonics-cluster-py

[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=727541

--- Comment #1 from Nils Philippsen <nphilipp at redhat.com> 2011-08-09 06:15:33 EDT ---
One issue up front: You didn't upload a source package built from the spec file
(release -6), so besides the tarball you uploaded, I downloaded the latest one
beside it (-3) and the latest one I found on a Fedora mirror (-5). After
unpacking I ended up with three tarballs of the same name, but different
contents and I found yet another different one in my rpmbuild directory
(probably from the old review). As I mentioned in the original review of this
package (cf. comment 9 in bug #511276) you must bump the version of the tarball
if you change the contents. This is especially important to not make tools
checking tarballs used to build packages against what is available upstream
(i.e. at your site) warn unnecessarily.

Items marked "GOOD" or "PASS" fulfil the guidelines or they don't apply to this
package.
Items marked "CHECK" aren't covered by the guidelines but you should check and
fix them anyway in my opinion.
Items marked "BAD" violate the guidelines in some point and need to be fixed.

- BAD: rpmlint run on comoonics-base-py-0.1-5.src.rpm flags issues:

    nils at gibraltar:~/devel/reviews/fedora/comoonics-base-py> rpmlint
comoonics-base-py-0.1-5.src.rpm
    comoonics-base-py.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) baselibraries ->
base libraries, base-libraries, libraries
    comoonics-base-py.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
baselibraries -> base libraries, base-libraries, libraries

  -> correct spelling

    comoonics-base-py.src: W: file-size-mismatch comoonics-base-py-0.1.tar.gz =
40620,
http://www.open-sharedroot.org/development/comoonics-base-py/comoonics-base-py-0.1.tar.gz
= 39598
    1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

  -> bump tarball version each time you change contents, see above

- GOOD/CHECK: named according to naming guidelines, but doesn't have a dist tag
(cf.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Using_the_.25.7B.3Fdist.7D_Tag).
I found that you have many RPM packages for different distributions on your
site, all of which only have a number as the release field. Adding a dist tag
to the release could help distinguishing the packages for different
distributions from each other.
- GOOD: spec file name matches package name
- BAD/CHECK: doesn't match python packaging guidelines (cf.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python):
  - BAD: as your package is for python 2.x, it needs to require python2-devel
for building
  - CHECK: Fedora >= 13 (and EL >= 6) sets %python_sitelib, you could set it
only for older releases like this:

    %if ! (0%{?fedora} > 12 || 0%{?rhel} > 5)
    %{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib())")}
    %{!?python_sitearch: %global python_sitearch %(%{__python} -c "from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib(1))")}
    %endif

  - GOOD: includes source and byte-compiled python files properly

  I think you don't target python 3.x just yet, so we can dispense with the
guidelines related to that. Mind that sometime in the future, 3.x might become
the default and you would need to adapt your package in that case.

- GOOD: licensed well (GPLv3+)
- BAD: license field (GPLv2+) doesn't match actual license
- GOOD: package ships license text as %doc
- BAD: package is written in American English, but has spelling errors (see
rpmlint output above)
- GOOD: spec file is legible
- BAD: sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, see
above ;-)
- GOOD: package successfully builds into noarch package in mock for Fedora 15
- GOOD: Lists all build requirements
- PASS: no locale specific files
- PASS: no shared library files included
- GOOD: doesn't bundle system libraries
- PASS: package not marked as relocatable
- GOOD: package owns all directories that it creates
- GOOD: doesn't list files more than once
- GOOD: permissions on files set properly
- GOOD/CHECK: The package uses macros consistently. The python interpreter is
referenced directly though, this might require fixing if python 3.x should
become the default in the future.
- GOOD: package contains code
- PASS: no large documentation
- GOOD: %doc doesn't affect runtime
- PASS: no header files
- PASS: no static libraries
- PASS: doesn't contains libraries with suffix
- PASS: no -devel subpackage
- PASS: no libtool archive files on account of no libraries 
- PASS: no GUI app
- GOOD: doesn't own files or directories owned by other packages
- GOOD: all file names are valid UTF-8

-- 
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.