[Bug 828732] Review Request: feedstail - A tail-f-like utility for feeds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828732 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-07-10 12:24:01 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- feedstail-0.4.0-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828732] Review Request: feedstail - A tail-f-like utility for feeds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828732 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- feedstail-0.4.0-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828732] Review Request: feedstail - A tail-f-like utility for feeds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828732 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828732] Review Request: feedstail - A tail-f-like utility for feeds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828732 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- feedstail-0.4.0-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/feedstail-0.4.0-3.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828732] Review Request: feedstail - A tail-f-like utility for feeds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828732 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de --- Thank you for your review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: feedstail Short Description: A tail-f-like utility for feeds Owners: mrunge Branches: f17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828732] Review Request: feedstail - A tail-f-like utility for feeds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828732 --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828732] Review Request: feedstail - A tail-f-like utility for feeds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828732 Thomas Moschny thomas.mosc...@gmx.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Thomas Moschny thomas.mosc...@gmx.de --- Looks good now. You should add a comment above the License: tag explaining which file is PD - can be done while importing. APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828732] Review Request: feedstail - A tail-f-like utility for feeds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828732
--- Comment #7 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de ---
No response from upstream regarding feedstail/utils.py. or even regarding that
'patch'. I added a comment, what it does.
I'd tend to see utils.py as fork from the corresponding file in web.py
That file has 62 lines of code including comments. web.py takes about 570k,
when installed.
Updated
SRPM: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/feedstail-0.4.0-2.fc17.src.rpm
SPEC: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/feedstail.spec
[mrunge@mrungexp SPECS]$ rpmlint ./feedstail.spec
../RPMS/noarch/feedstail-0.4.0-2.fc17.noarch.rpm
../SRPMS/feedstail-0.4.0-2.fc17.src.rpm
feedstail.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hackable - hack
able, hack-able, hackle
feedstail.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rsstail - horsetail
feedstail.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary feedstail
feedstail.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hackable - hack able,
hack-able, hackle
feedstail.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rsstail - horsetail
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
[mrunge@mrungexp SPECS]$ diff -u feedstail.spec.1 feedstail.spec
--- feedstail.spec.12012-06-06 11:06:34.0 +0200
+++ feedstail.spec2012-06-21 09:08:38.840649652 +0200
@@ -1,11 +1,14 @@
Name: feedstail
Version:0.4.0
-Release:1%{?dist}
+Release:2%{?dist}
Summary:A tail-f-like utility for feeds
-License:GPLv3
+License:GPLv3+ and Public Domain
URL:http://pypi.python.org/pypi/%{name}/0.4.0
Source0:
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/f/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
+
+# this simple patch makes setup install not to install docs under /usr
+# upstream is informed, but doesn't have a (public) bug tracker
Patch0: feedstail-doc.patch
BuildArch: noarch
@@ -14,16 +17,19 @@
BuildRequires: python-setuptools
Requires: python-argparse
-Requires: python-FeedParser
+Requires: python-feedparser
%description
-Feedstail is a tail-f-like utility for feeds. It monitor a
+Feedstail is a tail-f-like utility for feeds. It monitors a
feed and emits new entries.
-Feedstail aim to be simple, hackable and compatible
-with rsstail_ its C brother.
+
+Feedstail aims to be simple, hackable and compatible
+with rsstail, its C brother.
%prep
%setup -q
+
+# patch setup.py not to install docs in /usr
%patch0 -p1
# Remove bundled egg-info
rm -rf %{name}.egg-info
@@ -45,5 +51,11 @@
%{_bindir}/%{name}
%changelog
+* Thu Jun 21 2012 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de - 0.4.0-2
+- correct license
+- add a comment regarding patch
+- correct requirement python-feedparser
+- correct description
+
* Tue Jun 05 2012 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de - 0.4.0-1
- Initial package.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828732] Review Request: feedstail - A tail-f-like utility for feeds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828732 --- Comment #6 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de --- (In reply to comment #5) Thank you for the review! - The comments in feedstail/utils.py state that the Storage class (the only one in this file) is from the web.py project and thus in the Public Domain, whereas the file header is the standard GPLv3+ header. This has to be clarified upstream, I think. Until then, the license tag should be GPLv3+ and Public Domain. That's a good catch. I'll ask upstream. Wrong requirement: The package is named python-feedparser, not python-FeedParser. Oops, I'm sorry! This shouldn't happen. I'll correct that in the next version. [!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. See above. [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. rpmlint feedstail-0.4.0-1.fc18.noarch.rpm feedstail.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hackable - hack able, hack-able, hackle feedstail.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rsstail - horsetail feedstail.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary feedstail 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. rpmlint feedstail-0.4.0-1.fc18.src.rpm feedstail.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hackable - hack able, hack-able, hackle feedstail.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rsstail - horsetail 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. feedstail-0.4.0.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : 5b44af1b294e5c6a9aec70dc2ac158e2 MD5SUM upstream package : 5b44af1b294e5c6a9aec70dc2ac158e2 [!]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. In the %description: - Grammar: It monitor_s_ a feed ..., Feedstail aim_s_ to be ... - The last undescore is probably meant to be a comma. - (Only cosmetic) There should be a newline between the two paragraphs. I took the description from pypi.python.org. Nevertheless, you're right, and I'll correct it for the package and report it upstream. Please add a comment in the specfile for the -doc patch. Asked upstream to include that patch. Additional notes: - The rpmlint warnings are bogus. - You should think of creating something more usful to the user from the README.rst, using either rst2html or even rst2man (both from the python-docutils package) at build time, and install the resulting HTML and/or manpage. (Surely not a blocker though, just a suggestion.) Package is not yet approved, please have a look at the marked issues. I will update this during the next days. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828732] Review Request: feedstail - A tail-f-like utility for feeds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828732
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Moschny thomas.mosc...@gmx.de ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generated by fedora-review 0.1.3
My comments are inlined.
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.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[!]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
The Storage class (see below) is from web.py, which is packaged in
Fedora as python-webpy. Please check (perhaps with upstream) whether
it is possible to use that instead of the bundled one.
[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
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[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 Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[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
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if 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.
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Two issues here:
- The license should be GPLv3+, not GPLv3.
- The comments in feedstail/utils.py state that the Storage class
(the only one in this file) is from the web.py project and thus in
the Public Domain, whereas the file header is the standard GPLv3+
header. This has to be clarified upstream, I think. Until then, the
license tag should be GPLv3+ and Public Domain.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate 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.
[!]: MUST Package installs properly.
Wrong requirement: The package is named python-feedparser, not
python-FeedParser.
[!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
See above.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint feedstail-0.4.0-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
feedstail.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hackable - hack
able, hack-able, hackle
feedstail.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rsstail - horsetail
feedstail.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary feedstail
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
rpmlint feedstail-0.4.0-1.fc18.src.rpm
feedstail.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hackable - hack able,
hack-able, hackle
feedstail.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rsstail - horsetail
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
feedstail-0.4.0.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : 5b44af1b294e5c6a9aec70dc2ac158e2
MD5SUM upstream package : 5b44af1b294e5c6a9aec70dc2ac158e2
[!]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
In the %description:
- Grammar: It monitor_s_ a feed ..., Feedstail aim_s_ to be ...
- The last undescore is probably meant to be a comma.
- (Only cosmetic) There should be a newline between the two paragraphs.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: SHOULD If the source package does not
[Bug 828732] Review Request: feedstail - A tail-f-like utility for feeds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828732 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: feedstail - |python-feedstail - A|A tail-f-like utility for |tail-f-like utility for |feeds |feeds | --- Comment #3 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de --- I'll tend to view it as tool, not as library. So I'll rename it to feedstail. (SPEC and SRPM will follow). Then python3 support will be irrelevant (currently). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828732] Review Request: feedstail - A tail-f-like utility for feeds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828732 --- Comment #4 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de --- updated SPEC: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/feedstail.spec SRPM: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/feedstail-0.4.0-1.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
