[Bug 784603] Review Request: python-messaging - abstraction of a "message"

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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=784603

--- Comment #10 from Steve Traylen <steve.traylen@xxxxxxx> 2012-02-19 06:48:33 EST ---
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.
ASL 2.0
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
     least one supported primary architecture.
[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: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
EPEL5 targeted.
[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)
     Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
EPEL5 so yes.
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging
     for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
[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 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.
     Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is 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.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generates 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 output is silent.

rpmlint python-messaging-0.5-1.fc18.noarch.rpm

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.


rpmlint python-messaging-0.5-1.fc18.src.rpm

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

rpmlint python3-messaging-0.5-1.fc18.noarch.rpm

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.


[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
/home/steve/reviews/784603/messaging-0.5.tar.gz :
  MD5SUM this package     : 0b41ba68ef9951c862c73bdcc0917694
  MD5SUM upstream package : 0b41ba68ef9951c862c73bdcc0917694

[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.
[x]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: 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).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[?]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.

Issues:

Generated by fedora-review 0.1.2
External plugins:

My Comments: 
(1)
I don't quite understand the logic here:
%if ! (0%{?with_python3})
BuildRequires:  python-simplejson
Requires:       python-simplejson
%endif # if ! with_python3

This says that on platforms where python3 is not availble then install
install python-simplejson. But e.g rhel6 and fedora15 both have python 2.6
but only fedora15 has python3.

I would probably use a dist tag for this since it's the default python
version per distribution that is relevent.

On a similar not I would have two %if , %end statements instead of

%if 0%{?fedora} > 12 || 0%{?rhel} > 6
%global with_python3 1
%else
%{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print (get_python_lib())")}
%endif

you are mixing the fact that  python3 landing happen to coincide with rpm
setting python_sitelib automatically. They are not related even if they
happened at the same time.

%python_sitelib is only not set for EPEL5 these days.


(2)
Referencing a URL in the description? Why not just add the relevent
text to the description.

(3)
This noarch package with no compilation. i.e 
CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" is waste of space.

(4)
Building on fedora18 this is fine.

$ rpm -qp --requires python-messaging-0.5-1.fc18.noarch.rpm 
python(abi) = 2.7

I think it is still the case that on EPEL5 this is not auto-generated
so you must add this requires explicitly for epel5 only.

Steve.

-- 
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



[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]