https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1462464
Jaroslav Škarvada <jskar...@redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignee|ajschorr@alumni.princeton.e |jskar...@redhat.com
|du |
--- Comment #3 from Jaroslav Škarvada <jskar...@redhat.com> ---
Well, I finally did the review myself, sorry for the delay and noise :)
I think that the spec (and dist-git repo/project) should be named
python-speedometer. I.e. that's exactly the same what I am trying to achieve in
the bug 1481645 with the pyobd package. The fedora naming guideline [1] is not
explicit about it, but I think that the section for Python modules apply.
Also I think that the %files section should be empty and that the executable
should be shipped in the python2- package. The Python packaging guidelines [2]
aren't explicit about it, but it makes sense to me: e.g. later, when the
upstream will add support for python 3 you will just add version suffix to the
main executables and both will be shipped, each in corresponding package (this
is in the guideline), also you will not need to ship CHANGELOG twice.
I would prefer making module from the main code, i.e. shipping the code in the
sitelib and only the main loader in the /usr/bin (i.e. no *.py in the
/usr/bin). That's exactly what I did in pyobd. Currently the
python2-speedometer package is empty (contains only the EGG and changelog) and
the python2 code is shipped in the speedometer package, which renders the
concept of python2/python3 subpackages useless. Moreover, the rpmbuild cannot
create precompiled *.pyc in the /usr/bin. I am afraid if the package will be
run by root user stalled (owned by none package) .pyc will be created under
/usr/bin, which seems really bad.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
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]: 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 %license.
Upstream should be convinced to add the license file.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 1 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/yarda/git-
fedora/speedometer/1462464-speedometer/licensecheck.txt
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[-]: 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).
[!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
See comments in the beginning.
[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.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
At least python-urwid runtime dependency is missing, I got the following when
trying to run the package:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/bin/speedometer", line 6, in <module>
from pkg_resources import load_entry_point
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 2958,
in <module>
@_call_aside
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 2944,
in _call_aside
f(*args, **kwargs)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 2971,
in _initialize_master_working_set
working_set = WorkingSet._build_master()
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 635,
in _build_master
ws.require(__requires__)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 943,
in require
needed = self.resolve(parse_requirements(requirements))
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 829,
in resolve
raise DistributionNotFound(req, requirers)
pkg_resources.DistributionNotFound: The 'urwid>=0.9.9.1' distribution was not
found and is required by Speedometer
There may be more requires (I didn't check).
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: 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.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
See comments in the beginning.
[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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[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 does not use a name that already exists.
[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
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
Please convince upstream to add the license file.
[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
python2-speedometer
Not needed
[!]: Package functions as described.
No, package tracebacks for me, because it has mising requirements (see above).
[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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: speedometer-2.8-1.fc27.noarch.rpm
python2-speedometer-2.8-1.fc27.noarch.rpm
speedometer-2.8-1.fc27.src.rpm
speedometer.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary speedometer.py
speedometer.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary speedometer
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
speedometer.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary speedometer
speedometer.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary speedometer.py
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Requires
--------
speedometer (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/python2
python2-speedometer
python2-speedometer (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
python(abi)
Provides
--------
speedometer:
speedometer
python2-speedometer:
python-speedometer
python2-speedometer
python2.7dist(speedometer)
python2dist(speedometer)
Source checksums
----------------
http://excess.org/speedometer/speedometer-2.8.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
d599fd36dfd886fe199a4d901ade02d803069de66ad7b6e40022f337f68c0b18
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
d599fd36dfd886fe199a4d901ade02d803069de66ad7b6e40022f337f68c0b18
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1462464 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl,
Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
[1]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Naming?rd=Packaging:NamingGuidelines
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
--
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
