[Bug 840050] Review Request: python26-cheetah - Template engine and code-generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840050 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-08-05 02:41:07 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python26-cheetah-2.4.4-3.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 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 840050] Review Request: python26-cheetah - Template engine and code-generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840050 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python26-cheetah-2.4.4-3.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 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 840050] Review Request: python26-cheetah - Template engine and code-generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840050 Ricardo Rocha rocha.po...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Ricardo Rocha rocha.po...@gmail.com --- All comments have been taken into account. 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 840050] Review Request: python26-cheetah - Template engine and code-generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840050 Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python26-cheetah Short Description: Template engine and code-generator Owners: stevetraylen Branches: el5 InitialCC: Thanks for the review, This is an EPEL5 only package. Steve. -- 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 840050] Review Request: python26-cheetah - Template engine and code-generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840050 --- Comment #6 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 840050] Review Request: python26-cheetah - Template engine and code-generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840050 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 840050] Review Request: python26-cheetah - Template engine and code-generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840050 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python26-cheetah-2.4.4-3.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python26-cheetah-2.4.4-3.el5 -- 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 840050] Review Request: python26-cheetah - Template engine and code-generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840050 Ricardo Rocha rocha.po...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: main |Review Request: |package name here - short |python26-cheetah - Template |summary here |engine and code-generator -- 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 840050] Review Request: python26-cheetah - Template engine and code-generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840050
--- Comment #1 from Ricardo Rocha rocha.po...@gmail.com ---
Hi.
Here's a first go at it.
Generic things:
- what about replacing (not to have it hardcoded):
%global python_sitearch %{_libdir}/python2.6/site-packages
with something like:
%global pybasever 2.6
%global __python /usr/bin/python%{pybasever}
%{!?python_sitearch: %global python_sitearch %(%{__python} -c from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print get_python_lib(1))}
+:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing
MUST Items:
[-] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
python26-cheetah.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.0.1-2
['2.4.4-2.el5.centos', '2.4.4-2.centos']
- could you fix this?
python26-cheetah.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/Cheetah/_namemapper.so
- please add the executable flag to this one
python26-cheetah-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package
- this is fine, as you can't make it noarch
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
Follows the rest of the python26-* packages.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
MIT.
[-] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
The LICENSE file does not mention any specific license, the PKG-INFO file then
has:
...
License: UNKNOWN
...
Classifier: License :: OSI Approved :: MIT License
...
so it looks like MIT, but is it sure and could it be more explicit?
[-] 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.
The source contains a LICENSE file and you include it, but the text does not
match the MIT license text i could find.
[+] 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.
# md5sum Cheetah-2.4.4.tar.gz*
853917116e731afbc8c8a43c37e6ddba Cheetah-2.4.4.tar.gz
853917116e731afbc8c8a43c37e6ddba Cheetah-2.4.4.tar.gz.srcrpm
[+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one supported architecture.
Targeted only at EPEL5, works.
[+] 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
[+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro.
Not used.
[+] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun.
Package has a _namemapper.so, but not in a default path.
[+] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review
[+] MUST: A 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: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[-] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
Missing executable flag in _namemapper.so.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is
described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage.
Not the case.
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
No header files.
[+] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
No static libraries.
[+] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
No pkgconfig.
[+] 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.
Only _namemapper.so is provided.
[+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
No -devel.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.
[+] MUST:
[Bug 840050] Review Request: python26-cheetah - Template engine and code-generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840050 Ricardo Rocha rocha.po...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- 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 840050] Review Request: python26-cheetah - Template engine and code-generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840050
--- Comment #2 from Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Generic things:
- what about replacing (not to have it hardcoded):
%global python_sitearch %{_libdir}/python2.6/site-packages
with something like:
%global pybasever 2.6
%global __python /usr/bin/python%{pybasever}
%{!?python_sitearch: %global python_sitearch %(%{__python} -c from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print get_python_lib(1))}
I will do if you like but I always think given the the package
is completely hardcoded to EPEL5 anyway it makes little difference
to make the variables also hardcoded.
If you do make them dynamic utilizing python2.6 within these
%globals then you get non fatal koji errors when the .src.rpm is created
which is ugly.
Essentially other people have made me go from
dynamic to static in exactly the same case.
+:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing
MUST Items:
[-] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
python26-cheetah.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.0.1-2
['2.4.4-2.el5.centos', '2.4.4-2.centos']
Agreed, fixed in next package.
python26-cheetah.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/Cheetah/_namemapper.so
- please add the executable flag to this one
Agreed, I even changed it away from that for some reason. Fixed.
[-] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
The LICENSE file does not mention any specific license, the PKG-INFO file
then has:
...
License: UNKNOWN
...
Classifier: License :: OSI Approved :: MIT License
...
so it looks like MIT, but is it sure and could it be more explicit?
The LICENSE file is in essence a combination of MIT license as documented here
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT
I feel this qualifies as MIT.
[-] 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.
The source contains a LICENSE file and you include it, but the text does not
match the MIT license text i could find.
Same point as above.
[-] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be
set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
Missing executable flag in _namemapper.so.
Corrected
Fresh packages:
http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python26-cheetah/python26-cheetah.spec
http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python26-cheetah/python26-cheetah-2.4.4-2.el5.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
[Bug 840050] Review Request: python26-cheetah - Template engine and code-generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840050 --- Comment #3 from Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch --- http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python26-cheetah/python26-cheetah-2.4.4-3.el5.src.rpm of course. -- 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
