Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dogtail - GUI test tool and automation framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182306 ------- Additional Comments From toshio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-03-06 02:14 EST ------- Looks like someone on the pyspi bug is willing to sponsor you. Here's a full review for dogtail to work on while you get through the paperwork. rpmlint W: dogtail no-version-in-last-changelog Add the version information after each Changelog entry: * Fri Feb 17 2006 Zack Cerza <zcerza@xxxxxxxxxx> - 0.5.0-2 E: dogtail non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/dogtail/i18n.py 0644 E: dogtail non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/dogtail/rawinput.py 0644 E: dogtail non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/dogtail/logging.py 0644 E: dogtail non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/dogtail/utils.py 0644 E: dogtail non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/dogtail/path.py 0644 The files in question are not intended to be executables but they have #!/usr/bin/python lines so rpmlint is complaining. Removing the #! line upstream is probably the best thing to do. E: dogtail standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/bin E: dogtail standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/lib These are blockers. See comments under Needswork. E: dogtail hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/ This is a blocker. See comments under Needswork. E:dogtail script-without-shellbang /usr/share/doc/dogtail-0.5.0/examples/dogtail/apps/wrappers/evolution.py evolution.py has the executable bit set when it shouldn't. Actually, though, the examples/dogtail directory should be deleted upstream. E: dogtail non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/dogtail/config.py 0644 E: dogtail non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/dogtail/tree.py 0644 Safe to ignore. These have test cases that can be run. W: dogtail doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/dogtail-0.5.0/examples/abiword-test.py /usr/bin/env W: dogtail doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/dogtail-0.5.0/examples/evolution-test-composing-html.py /usr/bin/env W: dogtail doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/dogtail-0.5.0/examples/evolution-test-configuring-exchange.py /usr/bin/env W: dogtail doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/dogtail-0.5.0/examples/evolution-test-configuring-imap-smtp.py /usr/bin/env W: dogtail doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/dogtail-0.5.0/examples/evolution-test-first-time-wizard.py /usr/bin/env W: dogtail doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/dogtail-0.5.0/examples/evolution-test-sending-email.py /usr/bin/env W: dogtail doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/dogtail-0.5.0/examples/evolution-test-survives-email-CAN-2005-0806.py /usr/bin/env W: dogtail doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/dogtail-0.5.0/examples/evolution-test-switching-components.py /usr/bin/env W: dogtail doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/dogtail-0.5.0/examples/filechooser-stress-test.py /usr/bin/env W: dogtail doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/dogtail-0.5.0/examples/firefox-test-browsing-local-html-file.py /usr/bin/env W: dogtail doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/dogtail-0.5.0/examples/frysk-click-processes.py /usr/bin/env W: dogtail doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/dogtail-0.5.0/examples/gcalctool-test-fibonacci.py /usr/bin/env W: dogtail doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/dogtail-0.5.0/examples/gedit-test-utf8-procedural-api.py /usr/bin/env W: dogtail doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/dogtail-0.5.0/examples/gedit-test-utf8-tree-api.py /usr/bin/env W: dogtail doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/dogtail-0.5.0/examples/gnome-panel-test-starting-every-app.py /usr/bin/env W: dogtail doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/dogtail-0.5.0/examples/google-search.py /usr/bin/env W: dogtail doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/dogtail-0.5.0/examples/i18n-test.py /usr/bin/env W: dogtail doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/dogtail-0.5.0/examples/nautilus-test-icon-view-collage.py /usr/bin/env W: dogtail doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/dogtail-0.5.0/examples/no-help-at-all.py /usr/bin/env W: dogtail doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/dogtail-0.5.0/examples/recorder.py /usr/bin/env W: dogtail doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/dogtail-0.5.0/examples/rhythmbox-test.py /usr/bin/env W: dogtail doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/dogtail-0.5.0/examples/test-events.py /usr/bin/env There has been talk of removing execute permissions on anything in %{_docdir}. I don't believe this has been made a hard requirement yet but you can see it causes rpm to auto-require dependencies that the package without %doc does not. If you remove the execute permissions on examples this goes away: %install find examples -type f -exec chmod 0644 \{\} \; W: dogtail dangerous-command-in-%post rm There doesn't seem to be a good reason for this. Remove it. W: dogtail strange-permission dogtail.spec 0600 You can prevent this by changing the spec to 0644 but it isn't strictly necessary. Needswork: * Source0: should be a complete URL: http://people.redhat.com/zcerza/dogtail/releases/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz * The upstream source has a problem. There are two versions of dogtail-0.5.0.tar.gz One version is in dogtail/releases/. The other is in dogtail/releases/rpm_inst/. Since you are upstream, it would probably be best if you create a dogtail 0.5.1 that includes whichever is the preferred version. * The included tarball has two copies of the dogtail/ directory. One at the toplevel and a second one that I think is in error in dogtail/examples. If your spinning a new upstream release based off this source you probably want to address this as well. * Should BuildRequires: python even though it's already in the build environment * I see an explicit ChangeLog saying you needed to add at-spi-devel in order to build. Can you explain that? I've built the package with at-spi-devel installed and uninstalled/BuildRequires taken out and diff -ur does not show any differences. Unless there's something I'm missing, you should take this out. * The example files and scripts should be created non-executable. * At least on FC4, brp-python-bytecompile does not include documentation. Unless you know of a place where this fails, the definition of __os_install_post should be removed. * Macros should be used in place of directory names. The python package is compiled using directory macros like %{_libdir}, %{_bindir}, etc. When you use python's distutils via the setup.py script, python will substitute these paths. If the path definitions ever change, your hardcoded definitions would have to be manually changed whereas %{_bindir}, etc will continue to work. - For the python files in /usr/lib, it's an even better idea to use python's arch independent libdir. A macro to ca[ture this is: %{!?python_sitelib: %define python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print get_python_lib()")} Then you can use %{python_sitelib}/dogtail/ in your %files section. This protects you in case python's site independent directory changes in the future (moves to /usr/share/python3.0, for instance) * The .desktop file must be installed via desktop-file-utils: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop to add fedora as the vendor and X-Fedora as a category. * This package owns system directories which is a big no-no. Instead of /usr/bin/ use %{_bindir}/* Instead of /usr/lib/ use the %{python_sitelib}/dogtail/ syntax noted earlier. Instead of /usr/share/applications/ use %{_datadir}/applications/* /usr/share/icons/hicolor/.... I'm not sure what to do about. The hicolor hierarchy isn't directly owned by anything we depend on but it seems to be expected by a good many gnome/gtk+ programs. I'll ask fedora-extras for ideas. * Please see: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/ScriptletSnippets#head-d37d740d062d3aa6013aab44a79de88a6c1fe533 for an example of using gtk-update-icon-cache. In particular, the touch of the hicolor directory, the use of || : to prevent errors (for instance, if a %_netsharedpath is being used on the installer's system), and calling gtk-update-icon-cache from a %postun as well as %post. Cosmetic: * The BuildArchitectures: tag is usually written as BuildArch:. rpmbuild 4.4.1 appears to recognize both syntaxes, though. * Fedora Extras usually puts Requires/BuildRequires on separate lines for readability. * Group should probably be Development/Tools Highlights of passed checklist items: * Name follows naming guidelines * spec name matches package name * OSI License (GPL) * Copy of the GPL included * Builds on an FC4 x86_64 box (noarch package) * Permissions are okay * Has a proper %%clean * No %doc files are necessary for the operation of the program. * Builds in mock Fix these things up and I'll test out whether it works okay. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
