[Bug 1102950] Review Request: python-persistent - Translucent persistent python objects

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1102950

Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <nmavrogi@xxxxxxxxxx> changed:

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



--- Comment #7 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <nmavrogi@xxxxxxxxxx> ---

This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
  a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
  listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
  case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
  in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
  ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text



Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "Unknown or generated". 62 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/nmavrogi/review/review-python-
     persistent/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages,
     /usr/lib64/python3.4, /usr/include/python3.4m
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-
     packages, /usr/lib64/python3.4, /usr/include/python2.7,
     /usr/include/python3.4m
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-
     packages/persistent(python-ZODB3)

That Looks like an issue of fedora-review; thanks for filling #1112409.

[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
     supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
     in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
     Note: %clean present but not required
[-]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python-
     persistent-devel , python-persistent-doc , python3-persistent , python3
     -persistent-devel , python3-persistent-doc
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python-persistent-4.0.8-2.fc22.x86_64.rpm
          python-persistent-devel-4.0.8-2.fc22.noarch.rpm
          python-persistent-doc-4.0.8-2.fc22.noarch.rpm
          python3-persistent-4.0.8-2.fc22.x86_64.rpm
          python3-persistent-devel-4.0.8-2.fc22.noarch.rpm
          python3-persistent-doc-4.0.8-2.fc22.noarch.rpm
          python-persistent-4.0.8-2.fc22.src.rpm
python-persistent-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
python-persistent-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/python-persistent-doc/_static/jquery.js
python3-persistent-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
python3-persistent-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/python3-persistent-doc/_static/jquery.js
7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint python-persistent python3-persistent-devel python3-persistent-doc
python3-p 
ersistent python-persistent-devel python-persistent-doc
python3-persistent-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
python3-persistent-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/python3-persistent-doc/_static/jquery.js
python-persistent-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
python-persistent-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/python-persistent-doc/_static/jquery.js
6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
python-persistent (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    libpython2.7.so.1.0()(64bit)
    python(abi)
    python-zope-interface(x86-64)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

python3-persistent-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python3-persistent

python3-persistent-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python-persistent

python3-persistent (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    libpython3.4m.so.1.0()(64bit)
    python(abi)
    python3-zope-interface(x86-64)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

python-persistent-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python-persistent

python-persistent-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python-persistent



Provides
--------
python-persistent:
    python-persistent
    python-persistent(x86-64)

python3-persistent-devel:
    python3-persistent-devel

python3-persistent-doc:
    python3-persistent-doc

python3-persistent:
    python3-persistent
    python3-persistent(x86-64)

python-persistent-devel:
    python-ZODB3-devel
    python-persistent-devel

python-persistent-doc:
    python-persistent-doc



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
python-persistent: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/persistent/_timestamp.so
python-persistent:
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/persistent/cPersistence.so
python-persistent:
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/persistent/cPickleCache.so
python3-persistent:
/usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/persistent/_timestamp.cpython-34m.so
python3-persistent:
/usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/persistent/cPersistence.cpython-34m.so
python3-persistent:
/usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/persistent/cPickleCache.cpython-34m.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/persistent/persistent-4.0.8.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
678902217c5370d33694c6dc95b89e1e6284b4dc41f04c056326194a3f6f3e22
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
678902217c5370d33694c6dc95b89e1e6284b4dc41f04c056326194a3f6f3e22


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (b99027e) last change: 2014-07-14


Package looks good.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
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]