Bug 1279786
Summary: | Review Request: python-dbf - Pure python package for reading/writing dBase, FoxPro, and Visual FoxPro .dbf | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Julien Enselme <jujens> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | William Moreno <williamjmorenor> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | package-review, williamjmorenor |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | williamjmorenor:
fedora-review+
|
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2015-12-14 11:51:19 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 1279787 |
Description
Julien Enselme
2015-11-10 10:08:02 UTC
Package Aproved =============== 1. Ask upstream to include the license text in the tarball, I do not see a link to the home page of the project, if get access to the upstream home page you shold path the license text in the package. 2. Fix the end of line of the READM file, See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Remove_DOS_line_endings ===== 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. [-]: 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [-]: 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 [-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [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. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [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. [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: 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 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 separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: 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: python2-dbf-0.96.005-1.fc21.noarch.rpm python3-dbf-0.96.005-1.fc21.noarch.rpm python-dbf-0.96.005-1.fc21.src.rpm python2-dbf.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dBase -> d Base, base, debase python2-dbf.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dBase -> d Base, base, debase python2-dbf.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unicode -> Unicode, uni code, uni-code python2-dbf.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codepage -> code page, code-page, decoupage python2-dbf.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python2-dbf/README.md python3-dbf.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dBase -> d Base, base, debase python3-dbf.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dBase -> d Base, base, debase python3-dbf.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unicode -> Unicode, uni code, uni-code python3-dbf.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codepage -> code page, code-page, decoupage python3-dbf.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python3-dbf/README.md python-dbf.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dBase -> d Base, base, debase python-dbf.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dBase -> d Base, base, debase python-dbf.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unicode -> Unicode, uni code, uni-code python-dbf.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codepage -> code page, code-page, decoupage 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 14 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python2-dbf.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dBase -> d Base, base, debase python2-dbf.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dBase -> d Base, base, debase python2-dbf.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unicode -> Unicode, uni code, uni-code python2-dbf.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codepage -> code page, code-page, decoupage python2-dbf.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python2-dbf/README.md python3-dbf.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dBase -> d Base, base, debase python3-dbf.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dBase -> d Base, base, debase python3-dbf.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unicode -> Unicode, uni code, uni-code python3-dbf.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codepage -> code page, code-page, decoupage python3-dbf.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python3-dbf/README.md 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. Requires -------- python2-dbf (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-dbf (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python2-dbf: python-dbf python2-dbf python3-dbf: python3-dbf Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/d/dbf/dbf-0.96.005.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d6e03f1dca40488c37cf38be9cb28b694c46cec747a064dcb0591987de58ed02 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d6e03f1dca40488c37cf38be9cb28b694c46cec747a064dcb0591987de58ed02 Thanks for the review. I'll correct the line ending of the README and contact upstream for the license before importing the package into pkgdb. Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/python-dbf python-dbf-0.96.005-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-4a867ad4e4 python-dbf-0.96.005-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-ba1f02a453 python-dbf-0.96.005-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update python-dbf' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-4a867ad4e4 python-dbf-0.96.005-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update python-dbf' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-ba1f02a453 python-dbf-0.96.005-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. python-dbf-0.96.005-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |