[Bug 754094] Review Request: restauth - Web-service providing shared authentication, authorization and preferences

[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=754094

--- Comment #1 from Jaroslav Škarvada <jskarvad at redhat.com> 2011-11-21 10:17:35 EST ---
[NO] rpmplint is silent
restauth.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/restauth/localsettings.py
  The noreplace flag would be probably worth here.
restauth.noarch: E: zero-length
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/RestAuth/common/models.py
restauth.noarch: E: zero-length
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/RestAuth/common/urls.py
  Empty files shouldn't be packages unless there is special need for this. It
would be good to forward this to upstream.
restauth.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/restauth/localsettings.py 0640L
  Probably OK to hide the DB secrets.
restauth.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary restauth-group
restauth.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary restauth-import
restauth.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary restauth-service
restauth.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary restauth-manage
restauth.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary restauth-user
  It would be good to have the man pages. It seems they are already included,
  but not build and packaged.

[YES] Package meets naming guidelines.
[YES] Package meets packaging guidelines.
  Maybe missing version requirement for python-restauth-common.
[YES] Spec file matches base package name.
[YES] License file is present, matching with spec file.
[YES] Licensing Guidelines are met.
[YES] Spec file is legible and in American English.
[YES] Sources match upstream.
[YES] Package builds OK.
[!] BuildRequires are correct.
  I cannot find the python-setuptools-devel in rawhide.
  Is the python-setuptools really needed? It seems to build OK without it.

[YES] Package doesn't bundle copies of system libraries.
[YES] Package owns all the directories it creates.
[YES] Package has no duplicity in %files.
[!] Permission on files are set properly.
  The /etc/restauth/localsettings.py, maybe OK as commented above.
[NO] Spec file has consistant macro usage.
  Please use %{optflags} instead of $RPM_OPT_FLAGS or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT instead
of %{buildroot}.
[YES] Package is code or permissible content.
[YES] %doc files don't affect runtime.
[YES] Package doesn't own files/directories that other packages own.
[YES] All files are valid UTF-8.

Should items:
[YES] Package builds in mock.
[YES] Package uses sane scriptlets.
[NO] Package contains man pages.
[YES] Very simple functionality test passed.

Some more comments:
There is extra space in the second %doc (only cosmetic issue :)

%{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print get_python_lib()")}
is probably not needed any more.

The defattr is also not needed.

AFAIK the above have only sense if it is planned to package for RHEL-5 EPEL. If
so there should be also more additions (e.g. %clean section, ...).

Shouldn't you go with brp-python-bytecompile script and only remove the
/etc/restauth/localsettings.pyo and /etc/restauth/localsettings.pyc before
packaging?

It would be good to build and package the man pages. There are also several
docs, that could be useful for end users, please consider packaging them.

What about the Python3? Is this supported? Upstream states Python 2.6 or later.
If it is supported please also consider packaging for python3.

-- 
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.