[Bug 708826] Review Request: python-gitdb - A pure-Python git object database

[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=708826

Garrett Holmstrom <gholms at fedoraproject.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |gholms at fedoraproject.org
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #1 from Garrett Holmstrom <gholms at fedoraproject.org> 2011-06-13 19:34:58 EDT ---
Review of python-gitdb-0.5.2-1.git17d9d13.fc16:

The git object and packs and such in gitdb/test/fixtures are considered
content, but the license under which they are distributable is unclear.  I
recommend asking upstream for clarification.

Packaging-wise, please fix the permissions of _perf.so and add a date to the
snapshot portion of the Release field as specified in the packaging guidelines
[1].  All the other issues are optional, though if the included test suite
isn't difficult to run I encourage you to add a %check section.  See below for
the complete review.

[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages

Mandatory review guidelines:
NO - rpmlint output
     python-gitdb.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
gitpython-developers-gitdb-0.5.2-16-g17d9d13.tar.gz
     python-gitdb.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/gitdb/_perf.so 0775L
     --
     The first of these is acceptable.
NO - Package meets naming guidelines
     Snapshot release tags must contain dates.
     http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages
ok - Spec file name matches base package name
ok - License is acceptable (BSD)
ok - License field in spec is correct
ok - License files included in package %docs or not included in upstream source
ok - License files installed when any subpackage combination is installed
ok - Spec written in American English
ok - Spec is legible
ok - Sources match upstream unless altered to fix permissibility issues
     Github does not supply tarballs with consistent checksums
ok - Build succeeds on at least one supported platform
ok - Build succeeds on all supported platforms or has ExcludeArch + bugs filed
ok - BuildRequires correct
-- - Package handles locales with %find_lang
-- - %post, %postun call ldconfig if package contains shared .so files
ok - No bundled system libs
-- - Relocatability is justified
ok - Package owns all directories it creates
ok - Package requires other packages for directories it uses but does not own
ok - No duplicate files in %files unless necessary for license files
NO - File permissions are sane
     -rwxrwxr-x root root /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/gitdb/_perf.so
ok - Each %files section contains %defattr
ok - Consistent use of macros
NO - Sources contain only permissible code or content
     gitdb/test/fixtures/* have no associated content license.
-- - Large documentation files go in -doc package
ok - Missing %doc files do not affect runtime
-- - Headers go in -devel package
-- - Static libs go in -static package
-- - Unversioned .so files go in -devel package
-- - Devel packages require base with fully-versioned dependency
ok - Package contains no .la files
-- - GUI app installs .desktop file w/desktop-file-install or has justification
-- - Package's files and directories don't conflict with others' or justified
ok - File names are valid UTF-8

Optional review guidelines:
no - Query upstream about including license files
     No content license given for gitdb/test/fixtures/*
no - Translations of description, Summary
ok - Builds in mock
ok - Builds on all supported platforms
-- - Scriptlets are sane
-- - Non-devel subpackage Requires are sane
-- - .pc files go in -devel unless main package is a development tool
ok - No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin
-- - Man pages included for all executables
no - Package with test-suite executes it in %check section

Packaging guidelines:
ok - Has dist tag
ok - Useful without external bits
ok - Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir, /usr/target, /run
-- - Programs launched before FS mounting use /run instead of /var/run
-- - Binaries in /bin, /sbin do not depend on files in /usr
ok - Changelog in prescribed format
ok - Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags
ok - Correct BuildRoot tag on < F10/EL6
ok - Correct %clean section on < F13/EL6
ok - Requires correct, justified where necessary
ok - Summary, description do not use trademarks incorrectly
ok - All relevant documentation is packaged, tagged appropriately
ok - Documentation files do not have executable permissions
ok - %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise
-- - Package with .pc files Requires pkgconfig on < EL6
ok - Useful -debuginfo package or disabled and justified
ok - No static executables
ok - Rpath absent or only used for internal libs
-- - Config files marked with %config
-- - %config files marked noreplace or justified
ok - No %config files under /usr
-- - SysV-style init script
ok - Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded directory names where appropriate
ok - Spec uses macros for executables only when configurability is needed
ok - %makeinstall used only when ``make install DESTDIR=...'' doesn't work
ok - Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time
-- - Spec uses %{SOURCE#} instead of $RPM_SOURCE_DIR or %{sourcedir}
ok - %global instead of %define where appropriate
-- - Package containing translations BuildRequires gettext
ok - File timestamps preserved by file ops
-- - Parallel make
ok - Spec does not use Requires(pre,post) notation
-- - User, group creation handled correctly (See Packaging:UsersAndGroups)
-- - Web app files go in /usr/share/%{name}, not /var/www
-- - Conflicts are justified
ok - No external kernel modules
ok - No files in /srv
ok - One project per package
-- - Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified
-- - Packages needing dirs in /var/run or /var/lock use tmpfiles.d on >= F15

Python guidelines:
ok - Runtime Requires correct
ok - Python macros declared on < F13/EL6
ok - All .py files packaged with .pyc, .pyo counterparts
ok - Includes .egg-info files/directories when generated
ok - Provides/Requires properly filtered
-- - Code that invokes gtk.gdk.get_pixels_array() Requires numpy

-- 
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.