[Bug 1119095] Review Request: python-djvulibre - Python bindings to DjVuLibre
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119095 Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- 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 1119095] Review Request: python-djvulibre - Python bindings to DjVuLibre
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119095 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||python-djvulibre-0.3.9-3.el ||6 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-08-07 07:47:25 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-djvulibre-0.3.9-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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 1119095] Review Request: python-djvulibre - Python bindings to DjVuLibre
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119095 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-djvulibre-0.3.9-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing 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 1119095] Review Request: python-djvulibre - Python bindings to DjVuLibre
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119095 Brian Stinson bstin...@ksu.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Brian Stinson bstin...@ksu.edu --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-djvulibre Short Description: Python bindings to DjVuLibre Upstream URL: http://jwilk.net/software/python-djvulibre Owners: bstinson Branches: f19 f20 f21 el6 epel7 InitialCC: -- 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 1119095] Review Request: python-djvulibre - Python bindings to DjVuLibre
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119095 --- Comment #12 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. 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 1119095] Review Request: python-djvulibre - Python bindings to DjVuLibre
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119095 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- 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 1119095] Review Request: python-djvulibre - Python bindings to DjVuLibre
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119095 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. 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 1119095] Review Request: python-djvulibre - Python bindings to DjVuLibre
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119095 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-djvulibre-0.3.9-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-djvulibre-0.3.9-3.el6 -- 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 1119095] Review Request: python-djvulibre - Python bindings to DjVuLibre
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119095 Michel Alexandre Salim mic...@michel-slm.name changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Michel Alexandre Salim mic...@michel-slm.name --- Hi Brian, Everything looks good -- this package is APPROVED Let me know your FAS username and I'll sponsor it. Feel free to look me up for packaging questions in the future, and welcome again! -- 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 1119095] Review Request: python-djvulibre - Python bindings to DjVuLibre
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119095 --- Comment #9 from Brian Stinson bstin...@ksu.edu --- Great! Thanks for guiding me through this one. I might have a couple of minor questions that I'll send to you out-of-band. My FAS username is bstinson. Is the next step for this package an SCM request? --Brian -- 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 1119095] Review Request: python-djvulibre - Python bindings to DjVuLibre
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119095 --- Comment #10 from Michel Alexandre Salim mic...@michel-slm.name --- Hi Brian, I had to sponsor you first, otherwise your SCM request can't be processed properly. I've done that now, so do go ahead. I'm michel_slm on IRC and you have my email .. good luck! -- 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 1119095] Review Request: python-djvulibre - Python bindings to DjVuLibre
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119095 --- Comment #7 from Brian Stinson bstin...@ksu.edu --- Hi Michel, Sorry about the mismatch, I accidentally uploaded the wrong srpm that time around. Here are my changes for macro consistency, correcting the license, adding tests, and splitting the docs into a subpackage: SPEC: http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~bstinson/rpms/python-djvulibre/python-djvulibre.spec SRPM: http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~bstinson/rpms/python-djvulibre/python-djvulibre-0.3.9-3.fc21.src.rpm --Brian -- 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 1119095] Review Request: python-djvulibre - Python bindings to DjVuLibre
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119095
--- Comment #5 from Michel Alexandre Salim mic...@michel-slm.name ---
Hi Brian,
Some notes regarding your latest revision -- the spec you link to is not the
spec used to build the SRPM, there's a typo in the latter.
Also you're using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -- you want to
consistently use one (doesn't matter which), and since you only use
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT twice (and the first, wiping the build root in %install, is
only needed if you plan to build for el5), I'd suggest sticking with buildroot.
cf
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#Prepping_BuildRoot_For_.25install
$ diff -u srpm/python-djvulibre.spec srpm-unpacked/python-djvulibre.spec
--- srpm/python-djvulibre.spec2014-07-16 10:41:22.097479760 +0700
+++ srpm-unpacked/python-djvulibre.spec2014-07-15 06:41:48.0 +0700
@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%{__python2} setup.py install -O1 --skip-build --root $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
-# Fix non-standard (0775) executable permissions on private shared libraries
+# Fix non-standard executable permissions on private shared libraries
%{__chmod} 0755 %{buildroot}%{python2_sitearch}/djvu/sexpr.so
%{__chmod} 0755 %{buildroot}%{python2_sitearch}/djvu/decode.so
@@ -66,7 +66,7 @@
%changelog
* Mon Jul 14 2014 Brian Stinson bstin...@ksu.edu - 0.3.9-2
-- Incorporate suggested macro removals and changes from jduncan and cicku
+- Incorporate suggested macro removals and changes from jducan and cicku
* Sun Jul 13 2014 Brian Stinson bstin...@ksu.edu - 0.3.9-1
- Initial Build
--
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 1119095] Review Request: python-djvulibre - Python bindings to DjVuLibre
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119095
--- Comment #6 from Michel Alexandre Salim mic...@michel-slm.name ---
Full review -- there are several more issues
Summary:
- documentation probably should be split (end users don't need them)
- you should run the tests that upstream provide
Apart from these and the initial issues from the previous comments this look
quite good, hopefully we can get this in soon. Nice work!
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[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.
= this is expected
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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL (v2), Unknown or generated. 2 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/michel/sources/fedora/reviews/1119095-python-
djvulibre/licensecheck.txt
License should be GPLv2, not GPLv2+
[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.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
see previous comment
[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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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 563200 bytes in 53 files.
Documentation is about as big as the rest of the package, I'd
suggest splitting a -doc subpackage as it's only needed by
developers, not users of apps that use djvulibre
[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: No rpmlint messages.
[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]: 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 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:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
[Bug 1119095] Review Request: python-djvulibre - Python bindings to DjVuLibre
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119095 Michel Alexandre Salim mic...@michel-slm.name changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mic...@michel-slm.name Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mic...@michel-slm.name Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Michel Alexandre Salim mic...@michel-slm.name --- Taking this, will sponsor. -- 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 1119095] Review Request: python-djvulibre - Python bindings to DjVuLibre
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119095 --- Comment #4 from Brian Stinson bstin...@ksu.edu --- Thanks for the welcome Christopher, Jamie, and Michel! I've updated the spec and SRPM to remove the old preamble, use python2 macros and fix some permissions. To answer Christopher's question, this is a precursor to looking at djvusmooth. Updated SPEC: http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~bstinson/rpms/python-djvulibre/python-djvulibre.spec Update SRPM: http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~bstinson/rpms/python-djvulibre/python-djvulibre-0.3.9-2.fc21.src.rpm I completed rpmlint-clean local mockbuilds on f19,f20,f21,el6, and epel7 using this spec. --Brian -- 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 1119095] Review Request: python-djvulibre - Python bindings to DjVuLibre
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119095 Brian Stinson bstin...@ksu.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- 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 1119095] Review Request: python-djvulibre - Python bindings to DjVuLibre
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119095
Jamie Duncan jdun...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jdun...@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Jamie Duncan jdun...@redhat.com ---
A 'non-official' review.
rpmlint is totally clean:
Checking: python-djvulibre-0.3.9-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
python-djvulibre-0.3.9-1.fc20.src.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
BuildRoot Tag:
this is only required for EPEL 5 and older. might want to wrap that around some
logic.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
Python Macros:
These should probably be updated to %{__python2}, etc.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros
BuildRequires:
Need to add python2-devel, etc. so it builds properly in the build system.
You're listing python-devel, but that may get confusing down the road when Py3
becomes the default.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires
defattr at top of %files:
This isn't required anymore.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions
The module itself imports cleanly.
Other than picking those nits, it looks good. Welcome to Fedora!
Cheers,
Jamie Duncan
--
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 1119095] Review Request: python-djvulibre - Python bindings to DjVuLibre
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119095
--- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me ---
%if 0%{?rhel} 0%{?rhel} = 5
%global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c from distutils.sysconfig import
get_python_lib; print get_python_lib())
%define python_version %(%{__python} -c 'import sys;print(sys.version[0:3])')
%endif
You should drop them, RHEL5 only ships python2.4, you need to ensure that it
works actually.
# Don't check the example scripts in the documentation for dependencies
%global __requires_exclude_from ^(%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}/examples/.*)$
Why not chmod 644 to them?
Meanwhile I guess you are packaging ocrodjvu or djvusmooth?
--
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
