Bug 512020

Summary:	Review Request: pyliblo - Python bindings for the liblo OSC library
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Fabian Affolter <mail>
Component:	Package Review	Assignee:	Jason Tibbitts <j>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide	CC:	fedora-package-review, notting
Target Milestone:	---	Flags:	j: fedora-review+ kevin: fedora-cvs+
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:	0.7.2-2.fc10	Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2009-08-22 01:02:54 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 Fabian Affolter 2009-07-15 23:26:15 UTC

Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/pyliblo.spec
SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/pyliblo-0.7.2-1.fc11.src.rpm

Project URL: http://das.nasophon.de/pyliblo/

Description:
pyliblo is a Python wrapper for the liblo OSC library. It supports
almost the complete functionality of liblo, allowing you to send and
receive OSC messages using a nice and simple Python API.

Also included are the command line utilities send_osc and dump_osc.

Koji scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1477655

rpmlint output:
[fab@laptop09 SRPMS]$ rpmlint pyliblo-0.7.2-1.fc11.src.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

[fab@laptop09 i586]$ rpmlint -i pyliblo*
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Comment 1 Jason Tibbitts 2009-08-05 20:51:47 UTC

Could you perhaps expand OSC to "Open Sound Control" in your description?  It would have saved me having to look it up.   It's not a big deal, but there's plenty of space.

What's the commented line in %prep about?  That C file is compiled as part of the build; is it needed?  The comment should probably be removed if there's no point to it.

Since you seem to prefer %{buildroot} over $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, you might also want to use %{optflags} instead of $RPM_OPT_FLAGS although there's no requirement that you do so.

I don't see any blockers.

* source files match upstream.  sha256sum: 
   2ab48f50761d472eaa52fcbcb90958d9b7f3797a74092d021b16c8377bac4d2c
   pyliblo-0.7.2.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 (but could use some acronym expansion).
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   liblo.so()(64bit)
   pyliblo = 0.7.2-1.fc12
   pyliblo(x86-64) = 0.7.2-1.fc12
  =
   /usr/bin/python
   liblo.so.0()(64bit)
   libpython2.6.so.1.0()(64bit)
   python(abi) = 2.6

* shared libraries aren't added to the regular linker search paths.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.

APPROVED

Comment 2 Fabian Affolter 2009-08-07 10:23:34 UTC

I will fox the three issues before cvs import.  Thanks for your review.

Comment 3 Fabian Affolter 2009-08-07 10:24:35 UTC

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: pyliblo
Short Description: Python bindings for the liblo OSC library
Owners: fab
Branches: F-10 F-11
InitialCC:

Comment 4 Kevin Fenzi 2009-08-07 20:06:03 UTC

cvs done.

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2009-08-10 15:41:01 UTC

pyliblo-0.7.2-2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pyliblo-0.7.2-2.fc10

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2009-08-10 15:41:06 UTC

pyliblo-0.7.2-2.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pyliblo-0.7.2-2.fc11

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2009-08-11 22:30:47 UTC

pyliblo-0.7.2-2.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 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 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update pyliblo'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-8455

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2009-08-11 22:31:17 UTC

pyliblo-0.7.2-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 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 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update pyliblo'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-8454

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2009-08-22 01:02:49 UTC

pyliblo-0.7.2-2.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2009-08-22 01:05:16 UTC

pyliblo-0.7.2-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.