Bug 484560
Summary: | Review Request: pydb - An expanded version of the Python debugger | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Paulo Roma Cavalcanti <promac> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Jon Levell <fedora> |
Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | low | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | bugs.michael, fedora, fedora-package-review, lukasim, notting |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | fedora:
fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
URL: | http://bashdb.sourceforge.net/pydb | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2009-03-05 10:04:01 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: |
Description
Paulo Roma Cavalcanti
2009-02-08 11:09:56 UTC
This is just an informal review: 1) Using rpmlint on your spec file shows that for the main package you have omitted the %defattr section. It should be %defattr(-,root,root,-) 2) For the emacs subpackage, the defattr line should also be changed to the above. 3) The license tag should be GPLv2+ as the copyright headers allow you to use the code under a later version. 4) building the package with mock and running rpmlint on the resulting rpms gives warnings: rpmlint -i emacs-pydb-1.25-3.fc10.noarch.rpm emacs-pydb.noarch: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. and rpmlint -i pydb-1.25-3.fc10.noarch.rpm pydb.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/bin/pydb /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pydb/pydb.py Absolute symlinks are problematic eg. when working with chroot environments. The first is border-line: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Common_Rpmlint_Issues#no-documentation but the COPYING file should probably be included in at least one of the rpms The second can be fixed by following an example like: http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewvc//rpms/python-kid/devel/python-kid.spec?view=markup Other than the above, the rest looks fine. * Preferably bump "Release" prior to offering new src.rpm builds. That's helpful when using rpmdev-diff. Here the 1.25-3.fc10 has been modified silently. * "Group" could be "Development/Debuggers" * "License: GPLv2+" and the source files mention GPL 2 or later, but file "COPYING" is the GPL 3. Can you get upstream to clarify this? * Instead of %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1.gz prefer %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1* since the manual pages get compressed automatically, and the compression method and file extension may change. * Why "BuildRequires: fontconfig"? * It's good packaging-practice to run a test-suite target, if available, and provided that it is not known to be broken: --- pydb.spec.orig 2009-02-25 00:37:38.000000000 +0100 +++ pydb.spec 2009-02-25 09:46:13.000000000 +0100 @@ -44,6 +44,9 @@ make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} ln -sf ../..%{python_sitelib}/%{name}/%{name}.py %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{name} +%check +make check + %clean rm -rf %{buildroot} (In reply to comment #2) > * Preferably bump "Release" prior to offering new src.rpm builds. That's > helpful when using rpmdev-diff. Here the 1.25-3.fc10 has been modified > silently. > Yes. You were faster than me. The new src.rpm is: http://people.atrpms.net/~pcavalcanti/srpms/pydb-1.25-4.fc10.src.rpm > > * "Group" could be "Development/Debuggers" Done. > > > * "License: GPLv2+" and the source files mention GPL 2 or later, but file > "COPYING" is the GPL 3. Can you get upstream to clarify this? > > > * Instead of > > %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1.gz > > prefer > > %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1* Done. > > since the manual pages get compressed automatically, and the compression method > and file extension may change. > > > * Why "BuildRequires: fontconfig"? I do not remember why. Maybe some issue with emacs. I'll go check. > > > * It's good packaging-practice to run a test-suite target, if available, and > provided that it is not known to be broken: > > Included. I also had already included all Jon Levell's observations. Thanks to both of you. > > fontconfig
>
> I do not remember why. Maybe some issue with emacs.
Hint: Add a comment in the spec file. ;-)
(In reply to comment #4) > > > fontconfig > > > > I do not remember why. Maybe some issue with emacs. > > Hint: Add a comment in the spec file. ;-) fontconfig does not seem to be necessary, indeed. I removed the BR, and updated the spec and .src.rpm, but did not change the release (it is a very small change). I am also submitting bashdb, and I would appreciate if both of you could take a look at it. Thanks. Personally, I would have put the BR change in the changelog and bumped the release. Aside from that, I can't see any new issues - I'll go take a look at bashdb (In reply to comment #6) > Personally, I would have put the BR change in the changelog and bumped the > release. Aside from that, I can't see any new issues - I'll go take a look at > bashdb I registered the BR change, but I kept the release. I do not like bumping releases when the changes are done in the same day. Bashdb has already been approved, but thanks anyway. Ok... package approved New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: pydb Short Description: Extended Python Debugger Owners: roma Branches: F-9 F-10 F-11(devel) cvs done. |