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=691114 --- Comment #1 from David Robinson <zxvdr.au@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-04-13 07:28:06 EDT --- Hi Fabian, Just doing an informal review to help my case of being sponsored :-) The description of the source RPM is wrong. It says: Celery is a task queue/job queue based on distributed message passing. It is focused on real-time operation, but supports scheduling as well. The execution units, called tasks, are executed concurrently on a single or more worker servers. Tasks can execute asynchronously (in the background) or synchronously (wait until ready). Celery is already used in production to process millions of tasks a day. But the description in the spec linked to above is correct. It'd be good if the nosetests provided were run in %check. I had a quick attempt at making them run but didn't get it working. The MUST items appear OK to me: OK: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1] [zxvdr@laptop SRPMS]$ rpmlint python-msgpack-0.1.9-1.fc14.src.rpm python-msgpack.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) serializer -> serialize, serializes, serialized 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. [zxvdr@laptop x86_64]$ rpmlint python-msgpack-0.1.9-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm python-msgpack.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) serializer -> serialize, serializes, serialized python-msgpack.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/msgpack/_msgpack.so _msgpack.so()(64bit) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] . OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [3] OK: 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.[4] OK: The spec file must be written in American English. [5] OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6] OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. [zxvdr@laptop SOURCES]$ wget http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/m/msgpack-python/msgpack-python-0.1.9.tar.gz -O - | md5sum --2011-04-13 20:24:55-- http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/m/msgpack-python/msgpack-python-0.1.9.tar.gz Resolving pypi.python.org... 82.94.164.168, 2001:888:2000:d::a8 Connecting to pypi.python.org|82.94.164.168|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 42638 (42K) [application/x-gzip] Saving to: âSTDOUTâ 100%[=========================================================>] 42,638 37.1K/s in 1.1s 2011-04-13 20:24:57 (37.1 KB/s) - written to stdout [42638/42638] fea360812fd4bd485c07b03239f1ddd0 - [zxvdr@laptop SOURCES]$ md5sum msgpack-python-0.1.9.tar.gz fea360812fd4bd485c07b03239f1ddd0 msgpack-python-0.1.9.tar.gz OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [7] NA: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. ??: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. The README states that Cython is required to build msgpack, but the try/except ImportError in setup.py suggests otherwise. I successfully built the package both with and without Cython... NA: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11] NA: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. OK: Each package must consistently use macros. [16] OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17] NA: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. NA: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19] NA: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20] NA: 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. [19] NA: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} [21] OK: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.[20] NA: 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. OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. The SHOULD's are fine too: OK: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [25] NA: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [26] OK: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [27] ??: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [28] OK: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. [zxvdr@laptop tmp]$ cat msgpack_test.py #!/usr/bin/env python import msgpack serialized = msgpack.packb([1,2,3]) print msgpack.unpackb(serialized) [zxvdr@laptop tmp]$ python msgpack_test.py (1, 2, 3) NA: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [29] NA: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [21] NA: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [30] NA: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [31] OK: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.[32] [zxvdr@laptop tmp]$ pydoc msgpack -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review