[Bug 755139] Review Request: python-nose1.1 - Discovery-based unittest extension for Python

Sat Nov 19 15:01:58 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=755139

--- Comment #2 from Steve Traylen <steve.traylen at cern.ch> 2011-11-19 10:01:57 EST ---
 +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing

MUST Items:
[=] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
$ rpmlint ./python-nose1.1.spec 
./python-nose1.1.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: nose-1.1.2.tar.gz
See below for source URL.
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

python-nose1.1.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unittest -> unit test,
unit-test, unattested
python-nose1.1.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unittest -> unit
test, unit-test, unattested
python-nose1.1.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libtest -> lib
test, lib-test, liberate
python-nose1.1.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stdout -> stout,
std out, std-out
python-nose1.1.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizable ->
customization, customize, customarily

okay, all in common usage but I don't like customizable very much being
British.

[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] 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.
LGPLv2+ and Public Domain, 
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
okay the man page is public domain.
[+] 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.
lgpl.txt
[+] 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.
It should move to a proper URL.
[+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one supported architecture.
Builds in mock.
[+] 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
Builds in mock.
[+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro.
No locales.
[+] 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.
No shared links.
[+] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review
Not relocatable.
[+] 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.
$RPM_OPT_FLAGS and %{buildroot} both in use.
[+] 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.
[+] 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.
[+] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[+] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
[+] 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.
[+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release} 
[+] 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.
[+] 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.

Summary:
1) I would move to the real source url since the tar works perfectly well on
RHEL6.

2) The docs sub-package does not contain the license file and does not require 
   the main package.  I would add a dep on the main package to the doc package.

3) %{buildroot} and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS are in use:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS

   Actually RPM_OPT_FLAGS should not even be there , this is a noarch
   package.

4) A README.Fedora file should be added since this package obviusly falls into
   this category.
   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Eggs#Multiple_Versions

Quick check that it imports, - yes.

# python
Python 2.6.6 (r266:84292, Jul 20 2011, 10:22:43) 
[GCC 4.4.5 20110214 (Red Hat 4.4.5-6)] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> import sys
>>> sys.path.insert(0,'/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/nose-1.1.2-py2.6.egg')
>>> import nose

-- 
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.