[Bug 675628] Review Request: python26-jinja2 - General purpose template engine

[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=675628

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #1 from Steve Traylen <steve.traylen at cern.ch> 2011-02-14 13:58:11 EST ---
Review of EPEL5 only python-jinga, bug #675628

Builds in an EPEL5 mock okay.

- Package meets naming and packaging guidelines

$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/epel-5-x86_64/result/*.rpm
python26-jinja2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sandboxed ->
sandboxes, sand boxed, sand-boxed
python26-jinja2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US templating ->
contemplating, template's, template
python26-jinja2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sandboxed ->
sandboxes, sand boxed, sand-boxed
python26-jinja2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US templating ->
contemplating, template's, template
python26-jinja2.src:2: E: hardcoded-library-path in
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.

The last is fine for python26 package where it can't easily be determined
dynamically
and spec file is very hard coded anyway to python2.6.

sandboxed and templating are both verbisms so okay.


- Spec file matches base package name.
It does.
- Spec has consistant macro usage.
Yes.
- Meets Packaging Guidelines.
Yes.
- License
BSD
- License field in spec matches
3 clause BSD, all files contain ":license: BSD.".
- License file included in package
LICENSE file included.
- Spec in American English
It is.
- Spec is legible.
It Is.
- Sources match upstream md5sum:
$ md5sum Jinja2-2.5.5.tar.gz ../SOURCES/Jinja2-2.5.5.tar.gz 
83b20c1eeb31f49d8e6392efae91b7d5  Jinja2-2.5.5.tar.gz
83b20c1eeb31f49d8e6392efae91b7d5  ../SOURCES/Jinja2-2.5.5.tar.gz

- Package needs ExcludeArch
It does.
- BuildRequires correct
They are.
- Spec handles locales/find_lang
None present.
- Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
Not relocatable.
- Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
They are.
- Package has a correct %clean section.
Yep.
- Package has correct buildroot
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
- Doc subpackage needed/used.
Not needed.
- Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
They don't/


- Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
Mock build
- Package has no duplicate files in %files.
It does not.
- Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
Nope.
- Package owns all the directories it creates.
It does.

- final provides and requires are sane:


$ for i in *rpm; do echo $i; rpm -qp --provides $i; echo =; rpm -qp --requires
$i; echo; done
python26-jinja2-2.5.5-4.el5.noarch.rpm
python26-jinja2 = 2.5.5-4.el5
=
python26-babel >= 0.8
python26-markupsafe  

python26-jinja2-2.5.5-4.el5.src.rpm
=
python26-devel  
python26-distribute  
python26-markupsafe  

Looks good to me.

SHOULD Items:

- Should build in mock.
It does.
- Should build on all supported archs
It's no arch.
- Should function as described.
Test suite runs.
- Should have sane scriptlets.
None needed.
- Should have dist tag
It does.
- Should package latest version
2.5.5 is latests.

Issues:

NONE 

Straightforward python package - approved.

Thanks for the package.

-- 
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.