[Bug 682553] Review Request: python26-pycurl - A Python interface to libcurl

[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=682553

Christos Triantafyllidis <christos.triantafyllidis at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |christos.triantafyllidis at gm
                   |                            |ail.com

--- Comment #2 from Christos Triantafyllidis <christos.triantafyllidis at gmail.com> 2011-03-08 05:16:59 EST ---
Hi Steve,
   i did some review on this:
- rpmlint output looks ok for SPEC, SRPM and scratch builds at Fedora's koji.
- the name is according to guidelines
- the spec file has the correct name
- Regarding license the vendor provides the following string:
"PycURL is dual licensed under the LGPL and an MIT/X derivative license based
on the cURL license. You can redistribute and/or modify PycURL according to the
terms of either license."
I'm not sure if MIT should also be mentioned as dual license.
- Spec file is legible and seems to be in American English.
- MD5 sum of source matches upstream.
- Scratch build doesn't have any issues on any of requested archs (EPEL5):
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2893468
- SPEC doesn't handle locales at all so no issue here.
- There is no shared lib in any default dynamic linker's path.
- There is no bundle of any system library
- There is no Prefix header
- All created folders are owned.
- All files are listed once in %files section
- defattr is included in %files section
- macros are used instead of hardcoded names
- Documentation COULD be in -doc subpackage but this is left to the packager. I
guess it is better to be consistent with python-pycurl package for same arch
(where there is NO -doc package).
- %doc files includes documentation, examples and tests thus it is not required
for the program to run properly
- there are no header files or static libraries to use -devel or -static
- there are no library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1)
- there are no .la files
- there is no GUI application for this package
- the package doesn't own any file or directory that is owned by other
packages.
- the filenames of all files in the package are in valid UTF-8

Finally the package from the scratch build installs without any issue in a
RHEL5 clone and loads fine:
$ python2.6 
Python 2.6.5 (r265:79063, Jun  4 2010, 21:42:56) 
[GCC 4.1.2 20080704 (Red Hat 4.1.2-48)] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> import curl
>>> curl
<module 'curl' from '/usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/curl/__init__.pyc'>


To sum up i have only the following minor comments:
- Regarding license the vendor provides the following string:
"PycURL is dual licensed under the LGPL and an MIT/X derivative license based
on the cURL license. You can redistribute and/or modify PycURL according to the
terms of either license."
I'm not sure if MIT should also be mentioned as dual license.
- Documentation COULD be in -doc subpackage but this is left to the packager. I
guess it is better to be consistent with python-pycurl package for same arch
(where there is NO -doc package).


Also note that i'm not authorized to do an official review so these are just
comments to the packager and (helpful?) info for the official reviewer :).

Regards,
Christos

-- 
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.