[Bug 816012] Review Request: python-virtualenvcontext - Switch virtualenvs with a python context manager

Mon May 7 17:42:48 UTC 2012

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=816012

--- Comment #7 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec at gmail.com> 2012-05-07 13:42:47 EDT ---
Package Review
==============

Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated

==== Generic ====
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
     least one supported primary architecture.
[-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
     Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: 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 is included in %doc.
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Licenses found: "UNKNOWN" For detailed output of licensecheck see
     file: /home/mk/src/FedoraReview/src/816012/licensecheck.txt
     LICENSE is AGPL
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces
     There are rpmlint messages (see attachment)
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
     Upstream MD5sum matches source
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: 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.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
     /usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
     --requires).
[?]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
     upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.

Issues
------
[!] The LICENSE file is still AGPL, I presume you intended this to 
    be the GPL 2.0 COPYING?

[!] Since PKG-INFO is the only file with an overall license claim 
    (there's nothing in README.rst) include it in %doc

[!] The Summary: You might consider avoid the term virtualenv in the 
    summary, it's already in the name; using the name in the summary 
    is somewhat frowned upon. "Isolated python environments wrapper"?

[!] https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/python-virtualenv/ states 
    the license as "MIT-style permissive license" - that's not GPLv2+.

Mock tests.
-----------
<mock-chroot># rpmlint  python-virtualenvcontext
    python-virtualenvcontext.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
<mock-chroot># rpm -q --provides python-virtualenvcontext
    python-virtualenvcontext = 0.1.3-1.fc18
<mock-chroot># rpm -q --requires python-virtualenvcontext | grep -v rpmlib
    python(abi) = 2.7
    python-virtualenvwrapper

Rpmlint
-------
rpmlint python-virtualenvcontext-0.1.3-1.fc18.src.rpm

python-virtualenvcontext.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) virtualenvs ->
virtual
python-virtualenvcontext.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
virtualenvs -> virtual
python-virtualenvcontext.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
virtualenv -> virtual
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

rpmlint python-virtualenvcontext-0.1.3-1.fc18.noarch.rpm

python-virtualenvcontext.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) virtualenvs
-> virtual
python-virtualenvcontext.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
virtualenvs -> virtual
python-virtualenvcontext.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
virtualenv -> virtual
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

MD5-sum check
-------------

/home/mk/src/FedoraReview/src/816012/virtualenvcontext-0.1.3.tar.gz :
  MD5SUM this package     : 9cb767634ca9cfdfac9e3aacd8a70d5b
  MD5SUM upstream package : 9cb767634ca9cfdfac9e3aacd8a70d5b

Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0git
External plugins:

-- 
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.