Bug 593353
| Summary: | Review Request: pyliblzma - Python bindings for lzma | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | seth vidal <svidal> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Dan Horák <dan> |
| Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | dan, fedora-package-review, notting, tcallawa |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | dan:
fedora-review+
j: fedora-cvs+ |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2012-12-13 07:58:50 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
seth vidal
2010-05-18 15:30:37 UTC
okay, I've updated the pkgs and I think they are inline with python specs now. This package cannot, yet, build for python3 and that's fine this one is only targeted for python2. I've checked the latest package (please post URLs of the updated srpm too) and there are 2 minor issues - from rpmlint: pyliblzma.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.5.3-1 ['0.5.3-2.fc14', '0.5.3-2'] => I think it's an omission pyliblzma.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/lzma.so 0775 => AFAIK caused by setuptools, chmod will fix it and one more serious - licensing - the only file with a license header is setup.py (clear LGPLv3+), but the license of the module is not so clear, the only reference is about LGPLv3 (in setup.py and PKG-INFO) => I would say the license of the binary package is LGPLv3. But the source files contains no copyright or license header and this is also not optimal. Please suggest the author to add this information. I'm confused by that rpmlint output. all of the .so files in /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ on my system are 0755 including the one from my lzma pkg - do you have an odd umask? when built locally with rpmbuild I get 0755, but with mock it's 0775 - all on F-12 okay, a new version is uploaded with an 'attr' for lzma.so so it is 0755. uploaded to: http://skvidal.fedorapeople.org/misc/pyliblzma/ thanks! formal review is here, see the notes explaining OK* and BAD statuses below:
OK source files match upstream:
6240ec6f830f35f4087b8926a95c2074320b7ed5 pyliblzma-0.5.3.tar.bz2
OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
OK dist tag is present.
OK license field matches the actual license.
OK* license is open source-compatible (LGPLv3+ per upstream clarification). License text included in package.
OK latest version is being packaged.
OK BuildRequires are proper.
OK compiler flags are appropriate.
OK %clean is present.
OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64).
OK debuginfo package looks complete.
OK rpmlint is silent.
OK final provides and requires look sane.
N/A %check is present and all tests pass.
OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
OK owns the directories it creates.
OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
OK no duplicates in %files.
OK file permissions are appropriate.
OK no scriptlets present.
OK code, not content.
OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
OK no headers.
OK no pkgconfig files.
OK no libtool .la droppings.
OK not a GUI app.
- please include license text as %doc
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: pyliblzma Short Description: Python bindings for lzma Owners: skvidal Branches: F-13, EL6 InitialCC: CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py). imported and built for a long time, closing |