Bug 181831
| Summary: | Review Request: bitbake - Build Tool | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Andreas Thienemann <andreas> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | John Mahowald <jpmahowald> |
| Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | michael |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2006-05-04 03:17:04 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: | 163779 | ||
|
Description
Andreas Thienemann
2006-02-16 23:05:06 UTC
JFTR: rpmlint complains about some .py scripts not being set to executable. This makes sense, as not all of these scripts have the #!/usr/bin/python header included. builds cleanly on FC4. rpmlint shows the issues you have already stated and no others. Bitbake does recommend pysco, but pysco is not in FCE, perhaps that should get pulled in at some stage, but is not a show stopper. Looks good. (In reply to comment #2) > Bitbake does recommend pysco, but pysco is not in FCE, perhaps that > should get pulled in at some stage, but is not a show stopper. psyco is purely optional as it would speed up a bitbake run by optimizing the python code. Furthermore psyco runs only on i386 architectures. > Looks good. Thx. If it's okay with you, I'd upload the package into cvs then. Do not use /usr/%{_lib} when specifying python's site-packages.
Instead, install fedora-rpmdevtools and use fedora-newrpmspec --type python.
This template has a %python_sitelib macro for this, which evaluates to /usr/lib
on x86_64 for architecture independent packages like this one.
Thx for the advice. .Spec is cleaned up and at http://home.bawue.de/~ixs/bitbake/ - rpmlint checks return: E: bitbake non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/bb/build.py 0644 E: bitbake non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/bb/parse/parse_py/BBHandler.py 0644 E: bitbake non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/bb/fetch/local.py 0644 E: bitbake non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/bb/data.py 0644 E: bitbake non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/bb/fetch/cvs.py 0644 E: bitbake non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/bb/fetch/svn.py 0644 E: bitbake non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/bb/event.py 0644 E: bitbake non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/bb/fetch/wget.py 0644 E: bitbake non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/bb/parse/parse_py/ConfHandler.py 0644 E: bitbake non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/bb/fetch/__init__.py 0644 E: bitbake non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/bb/cache.py 0644 E: bitbake non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/bb/parse/parse_py/__init__.py 0644 E: bitbake non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/bb/__init__.py 0644 E: bitbake non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/bb/fetch/git.py 0644 E: bitbake non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/bb/shell.py 0644 E: bitbake non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/bb/fetch/svk.py 0644 Which are ignorable. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (GPL) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86_64) - no missing BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime Building html, xhtml, text, and pdf docs seems a bit redundant. You can drop html if you like. - no need for .desktop file APPROVED Thx for the review. -> NEXTRELEASE |