[Bug 574545] Review Request: python26-mysqldb : Interface to MySQL for python26 on EPEL5

Thu Nov 17 21:18:14 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=574545

--- Comment #8 from Ricardo Rocha <rocha.porto at gmail.com> 2011-11-17 16:18:07 EST ---
Review of python26-mysqldb:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=574545

Package builds with mock in a EL5 machine, and koji also succeeds:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3522613

EL6 and F16 fail, but this is not targetted at those.

 +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing

MUST Items:
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.

rpmlint is not silent, but it looks reasonable.

E: no-binary
W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib

This is the same issue as for nagios packages i guess, python site-packages in
under /usr/$libdir/python2.6/site-packages.

[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
Follows the rest of the python26-* packages.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
[-] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.

See below.

[-] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.

Sources mention GPL (in metadata.cfg and README), and according to the
guidelines:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses
...
A GPL or LGPL licensed package that lacks any statement of what version that
it's licensed under in the source code/program output/accompanying docs is
technically licensed under *any* version of the GPL or LGPL, not just the
version in whatever COPYING file they include.

So i guess it should be GPL+, not GPLv2 (or at least GPLv2+).

[+] MUST: 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.
The source package does not contain the license file.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
# md5sum MySQL-python-1.2.3.tar.gz*
215eddb6d853f6f4be5b4afc4154292f  MySQL-python-1.2.3.tar.gz
215eddb6d853f6f4be5b4afc4154292f  MySQL-python-1.2.3.tar.gzsrc
[+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one supported architecture.
Targeted only at EPEL5, works.
[+] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[-] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires

It does build without, but according to the python guidelines you need
python26-devel:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires

[+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro.
Not used.
[+] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun.
Package has a _mysql.so, but not in a default path.
[+] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is
described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage.
Not the case.
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
No header files.
[+] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
No static libraries.
[+] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
No pkgconfig.
[+] MUST: 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.
Only _mysql.so is provided.
[+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release} 
No -devel.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.
[+] MUST: 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.
No GUI.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

SHOULD Items:
[=] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.

I couldn't find it anywhere, please ask to include.

[+] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
English is ok, add others if you want.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
Checked i386, ppc, x86_64.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as
described.
At least it installs.
[+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[+] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.

Additional python checks:
[+] MUST: Python eggs must be built from source. They cannot simply drop an egg
from upstream into the proper directory. (See prebuilt binaries Guidelines for
details)
The sources do provide an egginfo directory, but it's not the one being
packaged.
[+] MUST: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
Seems to be an issue only for easy_install, not the case.
[+] MUST: When building a compat package, it must install using easy_install -m
so it won't conflict with the main package.
Not a multi-version package.
[+] MUST: When building multiple versions (for a compat package) one of the
packages must contain a default version that is usable via "import MODULE" with
no prior setup.
Not a multi-version package.
[+] SHOULD: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface
should provide egg info.
egginfo available.

Additional comments:

- python_sitearch is defined as requested by the guidelines for <=RHEL5 ||
Fedora < 13

-- 
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.