Bug 548877

Summary:	Review Request: python-virtualenv - Virtual Python Environment builder
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Peter Halliday <phalliday>
Component:	Package Review	Assignee:	Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>
Status:	CLOSED DUPLICATE	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide	CC:	fedora-package-review, mail, notting, tomspur
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:	2010-01-08 01:31:35 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 Peter Halliday 2009-12-18 22:35:45 UTC

Spec URL: http://www.excelsiorsystems.net/media/files/python-virtualenv.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.excelsiorsystems.net/media/files/python-virtualenv-1.4.3-1.fc11.src.rpm
Description:     virtualenv is a tool to create isolated Python environments.

    The basic problem being addressed is one of dependencies and versions,
    and indirectly permissions.  Imagine you have an application that
    needs version 1 of LibFoo, but another application requires version
    2.  How can you use both these applications?  If you install
    everything into ``/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages`` (or whatever your
    platform's standard location is), it's easy to end up in a situation
    where you unintentionally upgrade an application that shouldn't be
    upgraded.

Comment 1 Fabian Affolter 2009-12-21 09:41:34 UTC

Just some quick comment on your spec file.

- Can you please remove the spaces in the description?
- The %doc part needs some work.  There are some duplicate. 
- There are two source tarballs (pip and distribute) in the Source RPM.  What is the reason that those files are included?

Comment 2 Peter Halliday 2009-12-22 01:46:31 UTC

I updated the srpm.    I removed all the spaces in the description that were extra.  I fixed the %doc section by removing the _build directory and its files.  I removed the virtual_support files from the pythong path.  It's included, because it's included upstream.  It's included upstream, because the same author develops all the other packages.  It allows for installation without hitting the network again.  I don't install them at least.

Comment 3 Thomas Spura 2009-12-23 13:57:42 UTC

Could you post the new url to the spec file?

The one above should be an old one, because there are still the spaces.


Just some other comments:
- %gobal over %define
  see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define

- BR: python-setuptools-devel is not needed, python-setuptools is enought

- How about modifying the description a bit?
  You could use %{python_sitelib} instead of ``/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages``, so the example in the description will always be uptodate.

Comment 4 Peter Halliday 2009-12-23 15:26:53 UTC

I actually am not sure why the define was there at all, because I wasn't using it.    I removed the define.  I changed python-setuptools-devel just to python-setuptools.  I changed the description as you suggested.  I also updated both the spec file and the SRPM as per the changes to the original URL.

Comment 5 Peter Halliday 2010-01-07 21:55:42 UTC

Is there anything else needed from this?  

I'm wondering if someone else already packages this, because I see this:

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/search/python-virtualenv.


I see it hasn't been pushed to EL-5 though, which is what I'm really wanting.

Comment 6 Thomas Spura 2010-01-08 01:31:35 UTC

(In reply to comment #5) 
> 
> I'm wondering if someone else already packages this

Do you remember your own review bug #519615 ?

-> Closing as dub of the original review.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 460182 ***