Bug 361941

*** Bug 313361 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

I've been looking a little bit at the package and I've found that the wsdl2py
script requires python-setuptools and it requires that PyXML provide Egg
information.  I've submitted bug 364961 with a patch for the PyXML issue.

Now that 364961 is closed, I guess I can review this although frankly I've no
idea at all how to test this package, or what bug 364961 was about.

However, one thing I find troubling is that the two executables installed, along
with a few of the .py files, say:
  # Joshua Boverhof<JRBoverhof>, LBNL
  # Monte Goode <MMGoode>, LBNL
  # See Copyright for copyright notice!
but there's no file "Copyright" to be found anywhere.  Many of the other files
say "See LBNLCopyright for copyright notice!" and no such file exists.

How did you determine the licensing information for those files?

For some reasons all Copyright files are omitted in tarballs. However they still
can be found on svn:
http://pywebsvcs.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/*checkout*/pywebsvcs/trunk/zsi/
Copyright

and

http://pywebsvcs.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/*checkout*/pywebsvcs/trunk/zsi/ZSI/
LBNLCopyright

should clarify all things. It seems that "LBNL" is just a BSD-like license and
what I've found on ZSI/__init__.py is all true.

Ping?
Hope that someone will take this review soon ;)

Looks like those URLs wrapped.

http://pywebsvcs.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/*checkout*/pywebsvcs/trunk/zsi/Copyright
http://pywebsvcs.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/*checkout*/pywebsvcs/trunk/zsi/ZSI/LBNLCopyright

Can you include the actual copyright notices in with the package; something like

# These copyright files were omitted from the tarballs:
Source10: http://whatever/Copyright
Source11: http://whatever/LBNLCopyright

I'll ask spot to drop in and verify that the license qualifies as BSD, as the
bit at the end is unfamiliar to me.

I asked spot on IRC today and he indicated that we're going to have to talk to
the lawyers, because that last paragraph in the license is something we haven't
seen before.

Blocking FE-Legal

FSF says this is GPL compatible, so I've added this to the license list as "LBNL
BSD" (since it has the additional clause, we can't use straight BSD).

So, to summarize the past few comments:

The license is OK, but change from "BSD" to "LBNL BSD" (which will cause
rpmlint to complain until it gets a patch).

Include the copyright notices in the package.  Normally we're OK if upstream
leaves out the expected copy of the GPL COPYING file, but in this case we have
a weird license that almost certainly isn't going to be elsewhere on the system
and that seems to have been left out accidentally by upstream.  It hurts
nothing to include it.

Otherwise I think this package is fine.

* source files match upstream:
   368059c92c1afa6ae027d5aea6985caf0bbb890c5589c7d4564e59219ffa0f50
   ZSI-2.0.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
X license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   python-ZSI = 2.0-1.fc9
  =
   /usr/bin/env
   /usr/bin/python
   PyXML
   python(abi) = 2.5

* %check is not present; I've no idea how to test this package.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.

Thanks Jason for the review.
Before fixing license issues, I want to know your opinion about changing
package's name. Well, python-ZSI is without any doubt correct but inconvenient,
I mean upper case.
Would it be a good idea to change the name to python-zsi and provide python-ZSI 
(not really sure whether the providing is needed)?

Well, in general such things are up to the maintainer but the guidelines
indicate that if in doubt you should name the package after what you use on the
"import" line to load the module.

I'm personally more familiar with Perl than Python; Perl module names and hence
the package names almost always have upper-case letters in them.

Fixed license tag issues. Should be fine now.

SPEC: http://ecik.fedorapeople.org/python-ZSI/python-ZSI.spec
SRPM: http://ecik.fedorapeople.org/python-ZSI/python-ZSI-2.0-2.fc8.src.rpm

This looks fine to me.  I guess there's no real need to separately include a
copy of the license text since we have it in the wiki now.  One incredibly minor
issue:
  # to obtain some license information have a loot at ZSI/__init__.py file
You probably mean "look" instead of "loot".

Of course, the license change has elicited a complaint from rpmlint:
  python-ZSI.noarch: W: invalid-license LBNL BSD
but it will take rpmlint a while to catch up.  Probably needs a ticket filed.

APPROVED

(In reply to comment #13)
>   # to obtain some license information have a loot at ZSI/__init__.py file
> You probably mean "look" instead of "loot".

You're right. I will fix it when commiting to cvs

> APPROVED

Thank you :)

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: python-ZSI
Short Description: Zolera SOAP Infrastructure
Owners: ecik
Branches: F-7 F-8
Cvsextras Commits: yes

cvs done.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: python-ZSI
Updated Fedora Owners: ecik,jbowes

cvs done.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: python-ZSI
New Branches: EL-4 EL-5
Owners: stevetraylen
InitialCC: ecik,jbowes


I've contacted the python-ZSI owners on 4th, 16th and 19th of 
October requesting an EPEL build of python-ZSI. They have 
not responded so I am now at liberty to request and own
the branch myself.

Steve Traylen.

cvs done.

python-ZSI-2.0-6.el4 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 4.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-ZSI-2.0-6.el4

python-ZSI-2.0-6.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-ZSI-2.0-6.el5

python-ZSI-2.0-6.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

python-ZSI-2.0-6.el4 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 4 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.