[Bug 949895] Review Request: python3-bsddb3 - Python3 bindings for BerkleyDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949895 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cicku...@gmail.com, ||jsta...@redhat.com Flags||needinfo?(jsta...@redhat.co ||m) --- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng --- Status? perl-XML-Tiny -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=EA6IZsKx6Q&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 949895] Review Request: python3-bsddb3 - Python3 bindings for BerkleyDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949895
Honza Horak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(jsta...@redhat.co |
|m) |
--- Comment #3 from Honza Horak ---
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #2)
> Status? perl-XML-Tiny
Sorry, the delay is my mistake.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues (moved up, but also included in-line):
===
- Permissions on files are set properly.
Note: See rpmlint output
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions
- Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names).
Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros
- hardcoded -O1 and no $RPM_OPT_FLAGS usage in %install section -- if
necessary, a comment should be provided
- %defattr can be removed; not a blocker
- Maybe this is only my misunderstanding, but why we need -devel subpackage
with the only one header file here? I thought having the base package should be
enough to use that package for development.
- See comments in-line
- Project announces MIT on its web page but only BSD license is used in some
source files. This should be communicated with upsteam so they idealy use
proper MIT clause in every source file. Not a blocker though.
- BSD and MIT requires their text included
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
- I don't see it in the guidelines, but shouldn't there be "Requires: python3"?
- Version 6.0.0 is available
- Please see if the test case can be run in build-time.
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[-]: 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.
[-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
- hardcoded -O1 and no $RPM_OPT_FLAGS usage in %install section -- if
necessary, a comment should be provided
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
- %defattr can be removed; not a blocker
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[!]: Development files must be in a -devel package
- Maybe this is only my misunderstanding, but why we need -devel subpackage
with the only one header file here? I thought having the base package should be
enough to use that package for development.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
- See comments in-line
[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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 70 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/hhorak/Downloads/python3-bsddb3
/review-python3-bsddb3/licensecheck.txt
- Project announces MIT on its web page but only BSD license is used in some
source files. This should be communicated with upsteam so they idealy use
proper MIT clause in every source file. Not a blocker though.
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
- BSD and MIT requires their text included
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
[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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
- I don't see it in the guidelines, but shouldn't there be "Requi
[Bug 949895] Review Request: python3-bsddb3 - Python3 bindings for BerkleyDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949895 --- Comment #4 from Jan Staněk --- Most of the issues should now be resolved, see comments on some below. Actual version: - Spec URL: http://jstanek.fedorapeople.org/python3-bsddb3/python3-bsddb3.spec - SRPM URL: http://jstanek.fedorapeople.org/python3-bsddb3/python3-bsddb3-6.0.0-1.fc19.src.rpm Original version (links in the first comment no longer works): - Spec URL: http://jstanek.fedorapeople.org/python3-bsddb3/old/python3-bsddb3.spec.1 - SRPM URL: http://jstanek.fedorapeople.org/python3-bsddb3/old/python3-bsddb3-5.3.0-1.fc18.src.rpm (In reply to Honza Horak from comment #3) > - Permissions on files are set properly. > Note: See rpmlint output > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions > ... > python3-bsddb3.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm > /usr/lib64/python3.3/site-packages/bsddb3/_pybsddb.cpython-33m.so 0775L rpmlint complains about non-standard executable .so, but I checked other built python3 modules and this .so is where it belongs, with proper rights (when I tried to make it non-executable, the module testsuite complained). > - Project announces MIT on its web page but only BSD license is used in some > source files. This should be communicated with upstream so they ideally use > proper MIT clause in every source file. Not a blocker though. > - BSD and MIT requires their text included > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text Upstream confirmed the 3-clause BSD license for the entire project and acknowledged these issues with promise of fixing them in the next release. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Li92ZbSm0g&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 949895] Review Request: python3-bsddb3 - Python3 bindings for BerkleyDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949895 --- Comment #5 from Honza Horak --- Thanks, it looks fine, except the last two issues probably: - packaging header file /usr/include/python3.3m/bsddb3/bsddb.h is not necessary IMHO. Or is there any reason to do so? - BSD license file should be provided since BSD requires a copy of license to be distributed together with sources (if upstream doesn't package the BSD license file in the tar ball, which they should, we should add it manually): https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=zZIcmDX7MN&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 949895] Review Request: python3-bsddb3 - Python3 bindings for BerkleyDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949895 --- Comment #6 from Jan Staněk --- (In reply to Honza Horak from comment #5) > - packaging header file /usr/include/python3.3m/bsddb3/bsddb.h is not > necessary IMHO. Or is there any reason to do so? It is probably not necessary, however it is installed by the upstream setup script. Of course I can remove it, but since upstream decided to ship it, I think it should stay there, to be as close to the upstream version as possible. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=qLLss5iCvv&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 949895] Review Request: python3-bsddb3 - Python3 bindings for BerkleyDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949895 Honza Horak changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bkab...@redhat.com Flags||needinfo?(bkab...@redhat.co ||m) --- Comment #7 from Honza Horak --- (In reply to Jan Staněk from comment #6) > (In reply to Honza Horak from comment #5) > > - packaging header file /usr/include/python3.3m/bsddb3/bsddb.h is not > > necessary IMHO. Or is there any reason to do so? > > It is probably not necessary, however it is installed by the upstream setup > script. Of course I can remove it, but since upstream decided to ship it, I > think it should stay there, to be as close to the upstream version as > possible. Staying close to upstream is generally good approach, especially when speaking about functionality/features. But I wouldn't take it too strict when speaking about content of RPMs. Removing unneeded stuff from RPM payload is quite common thing. Anyway, I'm not Python expert, but since no other module seems to do the same, I'd say it is pointless: $ repoquery --whatprovides --archlist='x86_64,noarch' '*/usr/include/python3.3m/*.h' python3-devel-0:3.3.2-6.fc19.x86_64 python3-libs-0:3.3.2-2.fc19.x86_64 python3-libs-0:3.3.2-6.fc19.x86_64 python3-devel-0:3.3.2-2.fc19.x86_64 python3-sip-devel-0:4.14.6-1.fc19.x86_64 However, let's ask Python guru, what he things about packaging /usr/include/python3.3m/bsddb3/bsddb.h file. Slavku, can you express your POV? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=hKEKI8eFUM&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 949895] Review Request: python3-bsddb3 - Python3 bindings for BerkleyDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949895 Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(bkab...@redhat.co | |m) | --- Comment #8 from Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda --- Hmm, we usually don't ship *.h files with Python extension packages, but I guess it depends on the use case. If there are some other libraries/users that may need including these headers, then shipping them in -devel subpackage is probably fine. Usually, this is not a case, so I'd advise to not ship the headers. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=FBHcrpalDX&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 949895] Review Request: python3-bsddb3 - Python3 bindings for BerkleyDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949895 --- Comment #9 from Jan Staněk --- OK then, I removed the header from the final package. I also added LICENSE file as separate (local) source, until upstream releases updated version with (hopefully) fixed licensing issues. Here is the current version: Spec URL: http://jstanek.fedorapeople.org/python3-bsddb3/python3-bsddb3.spec SRPM URL: http://jstanek.fedorapeople.org/python3-bsddb3/python3-bsddb3-6.0.0-1.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=SwovrorryR&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 949895] Review Request: python3-bsddb3 - Python3 bindings for BerkleyDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949895 Honza Horak changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Honza Horak --- Sounds fine for me now. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=whZetr4SE5&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 949895] Review Request: python3-bsddb3 - Python3 bindings for BerkleyDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949895 Jan Staněk changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Jan Staněk --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python3-bsddb3 Short Description: Python 3 bindings for BerkeleyDB Owners: jstanek Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC: -- 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 949895] Review Request: python3-bsddb3 - Python3 bindings for BerkleyDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949895 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- 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 949895] Review Request: python3-bsddb3 - Python3 bindings for BerkleyDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949895 --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla --- 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 949895] Review Request: python3-bsddb3 - Python3 bindings for BerkleyDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949895 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |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 949895] Review Request: python3-bsddb3 - Python3 bindings for BerkleyDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949895 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- python3-bsddb3-6.0.0-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python3-bsddb3-6.0.0-1.fc20 -- 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 949895] Review Request: python3-bsddb3 - Python3 bindings for BerkleyDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949895 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- python3-bsddb3-6.0.0-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python3-bsddb3-6.0.0-1.fc19 -- 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 949895] Review Request: python3-bsddb3 - Python3 bindings for BerkleyDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949895 Jan Staněk changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2013-10-08 05:25:42 --- Comment #15 from Jan Staněk --- Package submitted for testing, should be available in updates repo for Fedora 19 & 20 within a week. -- 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 949895] Review Request: python3-bsddb3 - Python3 bindings for BerkleyDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949895 --- Comment #16 from Paul Franklin (RHlists) --- Thank you. -- 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 949895] Review Request: python3-bsddb3 - Python3 bindings for BerkleyDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949895 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ON_QA Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |--- Keywords||Reopened --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- python3-bsddb3-6.0.0-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 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 949895] Review Request: python3-bsddb3 - Python3 bindings for BerkleyDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949895 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||python3-bsddb3-6.0.0-1.fc19 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed|2013-10-08 05:25:42 |2013-10-22 23:31:22 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- python3-bsddb3-6.0.0-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 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 949895] Review Request: python3-bsddb3 - Python3 bindings for BerkleyDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949895 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System --- python3-bsddb3-6.0.0-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 949895] Review Request: python3-bsddb3 - Python3 bindings for BerkleyDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949895 Paul Franklin (RHlists) changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pf.rhli...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Paul Franklin (RHlists) --- It is not clear to me whether anything is happening or not. I requested this in bugzilla 919961 and I can't tell if that one has been closed or not, either. If the problem is that this was somehow done for F18 and it's now too late for F19 (or whatever) can't this still be done, for rawhide or F20 or whatever? Thanks. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=sCEAnrsiXW&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 949895] Review Request: python3-bsddb3 - Python3 bindings for BerkleyDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949895 Honza Horak changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hho...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|hho...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=25yUQBTy9t&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
