[Bug 839142] Review Request: python-urllib2_kerberos - Kerberos over HTTP Negotiate/SPNEGO support for urllib2

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839142

Matěj Cepl <mcepl@xxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #4 from Matěj Cepl <mcepl@xxxxxxxxxx> ---
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

+ MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review

wycliff:tmp $ rpmlint -i *.src.rpm noarch/*.rpm
python-urllib2_kerberos.noarch: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
wycliff:tmp $ 

Upstream package doesn't contain any special documentation, so this warning can
be ignored, packagers are not required to write documentation themselves. It
would however be good to provide at least some examples how to incorporate this
module into normal Python script (or at least a reference to some web document
describing it). That's however, not a requirement for this packaging review.

+ MUST: package named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
+ MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
+ MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .

This is possible as well:

# Remove "#!/usr/bin/python\n"
tail -n +2 urllib2_kerberos.py >patched-urllib2_kerberos.py
mv patched-urllib2_kerberos.py urllib2_kerberos.py

but I would prefer something more conservative (e.g.,
sed -i -e '/^#!\s*\/.*bin\/.*python/d' urllib2_kerberos.py

or something even better). But, again, that's just a nit-pick not a breach of
the packaging requirements.

+ MUST: The package licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines
+ MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual
license
APL2
+ 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 must be included in %doc.
License file is not included in the upstream package.
+ MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
+ MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
+ MUST: 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
MD5: 9a22d5d243103e17ca0ccf64b51f54ec
+ MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture - build in koji, no problems
0 MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch
+ MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines
Build in koji (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4342775)
0 MUST: The spec file handles locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro
No locales are present.
0 MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
No libraries provided.
+ MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries
0 MUST: 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. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker
+ MUST: Package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create
a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create
that directory
+ MUST: Package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings
+ MUST: Each package must consistently use macros
+ MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content
0 MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage
0 MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application
0 MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package
0 MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package
0 MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
0 MUST: 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
0 MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
+ MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built
0 MUST: 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
+ MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages
+ MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8

Please consider suggested enhancements, but otherwise this package is

APPROVED

-- 
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]