Bug 788815

Package Review
==============

Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated



==== Generic ====
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
     least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[!]: MUST Buildroot is not present
     Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
     Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging
     for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
     Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
     license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
     license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.

rpmlint python-ZSI-2.0-10.fc17.noarch.rpm

python-ZSI.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Zolera -> Cholera
python-ZSI.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wsdl2dispatch
python-ZSI.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wsdl2py
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.


rpmlint python-ZSI-2.0-10.fc17.src.rpm

python-ZSI.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Zolera -> Cholera
python-ZSI.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://belnet.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/pywebsvcs/ZSI-2.0.tar.gz <urlopen error timed out>
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.


[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
/home/haikel/788815/ZSI-2.0.tar.gz :
  MD5SUM this package     : bb706337cafe9e2201b06b1bce71ca0f
  MD5SUM upstream package : bb706337cafe9e2201b06b1bce71ca0f

[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
     separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
     include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
     /usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
     --requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
     upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
     Note: %define python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig
     import get_python_lib; print get_python_lib()")}

Issues:
[!]: MUST Buildroot is not present
     Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging
     for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.

rpmlint python-ZSI-2.0-10.fc17.noarch.rpm

python-ZSI.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Zolera -> Cholera
python-ZSI.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wsdl2dispatch
python-ZSI.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wsdl2py
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.


rpmlint python-ZSI-2.0-10.fc17.src.rpm

python-ZSI.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Zolera -> Cholera
python-ZSI.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://belnet.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/pywebsvcs/ZSI-2.0.tar.gz <urlopen error timed out>
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.


Generated by fedora-review 0.1.2
External plugins:

Notes:
* we can safely ignore rpmlint output since python-ZSI has existing EPEL5 branch, the same for spelling errors.
* fix upstream download url (the one in the spec is not working)
http://belnet.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/pywebsvcs/ZSI-2.0.tar.gz
* prefer macro style over shell style s/$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{buildroot}/
* you should ask upstream to include license text in source package (if they still answer)
* Though i won't consider this as a blocker, i strongly recommend you to run tests in %check section. All the more important since ZSI upstream is not responsive. For the few tests, that fails, i suggests you that you override tests exit code with "|| :". 
That will help you monitoring ZSI health state during each release.
* i need to confirm that you're ok with the fact that ZSI is not actively maintained by upstream ? That means that you might have to fix by yourself FTBFS ou issues reported by users.


As long as you do the required changes above and you confirm that you will maintain it knowing that upstream might not be helpful, i may approve this package.

(In reply to comment #1)
> 
> Notes:
> * we can safely ignore rpmlint output since python-ZSI has existing EPEL5
> branch, the same for spelling errors.
> * fix upstream download url (the one in the spec is not working)
> http://belnet.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/pywebsvcs/ZSI-2.0.tar.gz

Done.

> * prefer macro style over shell style s/$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{buildroot}/

Fixed.

> * you should ask upstream to include license text in source package (if they
> still answer)

Will do - I'll also ask re. the failed test (see below)

> * Though i won't consider this as a blocker, i strongly recommend you to run
> tests in %check section. All the more important since ZSI upstream is not
> responsive. For the few tests, that fails, i suggests you that you override
> tests exit code with "|| :". 
> That will help you monitoring ZSI health state during each release.

Done - one test fails, which I'll mention to upstream (there is also an alpha 2.1 release, it may be fixed there?)

> * i need to confirm that you're ok with the fact that ZSI is not actively
> maintained by upstream ? That means that you might have to fix by yourself
> FTBFS ou issues reported by users.
> 

It seems like there has been some work on the code in the past few months?  I'll look into this further and try to contact upstream.  I'm mostly getting this out to avoid breaking a dependency for another package I maintain (apbs) - if upstream is silent here, I'll discuss with upstream of apbs about switching to a different SOAP library.  If both of these approaches fail, I'll do my best to handle problems that arise.

> 
> As long as you do the required changes above and you confirm that you will
> maintain it knowing that upstream might not be helpful, i may approve this
> package.

I understand - and thanks for the help getting this review done promptly!

New files:

Spec URL: https://sites.google.com/site/timfenn/python-ZSI.spec
SRPM URL: https://sites.google.com/site/timfenn/python-ZSI-2.0-11.fc16.src.rpm

Awesome !

i've mistakenly pasted the wrong download url in my review (i'm sorry, it's my fault), it should be:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/pywebsvcs/ZSI/ZSI-%{version}/ZSI-%{version}.tar.gz

A quick test:
urlgrabber http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/pywebsvcs/ZSI/ZSI-2.0/ZSI-2.0.tar.gz

The mock build fails due to tests
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3777577

Since tests doesn't modify their sys.path, they fail to find the ZSI module (which is not installed yet). To fix that, you can add the ZSI directory to PYTHONPATH environment variable. PyXML will also be needed as a BR.
I have one more failing tests (the TCtimes one).

Here's a scratch build of a slightly modified version of your package that builds inside mock.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3777593

As soon as you fix the download url, i'll approve this package. Save that, it's all green for me.

(In reply to comment #3)
> Awesome !
> 
> i've mistakenly pasted the wrong download url in my review (i'm sorry, it's my
> fault), it should be:
> http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/pywebsvcs/ZSI/ZSI-%{version}/ZSI-%{version}.tar.gz
> 

Oh, whoops - I thought I fixed that, apparently I just entered a second, incorrect address!  >.<

> A quick test:
> urlgrabber
> http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/pywebsvcs/ZSI/ZSI-2.0/ZSI-2.0.tar.gz
> 
> The mock build fails due to tests
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3777577
> 
> Since tests doesn't modify their sys.path, they fail to find the ZSI module
> (which is not installed yet). To fix that, you can add the ZSI directory to
> PYTHONPATH environment variable. PyXML will also be needed as a BR.
> I have one more failing tests (the TCtimes one).
> 
> Here's a scratch build of a slightly modified version of your package that
> builds inside mock.
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3777593
> 

Great, thanks.  Mental note to myself: do mock tests in rawhide next time to find these errors.  ;)

> As soon as you fix the download url, i'll approve this package. Save that, it's
> all green for me.

OK, done:

Spec URL: https://sites.google.com/site/timfenn/python-ZSI.spec
SRPM URL: https://sites.google.com/site/timfenn/python-ZSI-2.0-12.fc16.src.rpm

Again, thanks for the help!

Well, there's no more blockers holding this package, I approve this package back.

scratch build of current reviewed package
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3777746

Quick question: should I request f16 and el6 as branches, if the older python-ZSI is already available there?

According pkgdb, only Fedora branches have been deprecated, so you can only claim f15/f16/devel.
If you want to co-maintain EPEL branches, you should exchange ACLs with EPEL maintainers after Rel-eng has unblocked python-ZSI.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: python-ZSI
Short Description: python Zolera Soap Infrastructur
Owners: timfenn
Branches: f15 f16
InitialCC: timfenn

(In reply to comment #7)
> According pkgdb, only Fedora branches have been deprecated, so you can only
> claim f15/f16/devel.
> If you want to co-maintain EPEL branches, you should exchange ACLs with EPEL
> maintainers after Rel-eng has unblocked python-ZSI.

OK, I'll go with f15/f16/devel for now, which will resolve the dependency problem for apbs, then work on getting the ACL sorted out.

Unretired devel.  Please take ownership, then submit a Package Change SCM
request to create f17.  Thanks!

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: python-ZSI
New Branches: f17
Owners: timfenn

ownership change done!

Git done (by process-git-requests).

python-ZSI-2.0-12.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-ZSI-2.0-12.fc17

python-ZSI-2.0-12.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-ZSI-2.0-12.fc16

Package python-ZSI-2.0-12.fc17:
* should fix your issue,
* was pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository,
* should be available at your local mirror within two days.
Update it with:
# su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing python-ZSI-2.0-12.fc17'
as soon as you are able to.
Please go to the following url:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-1806/python-ZSI-2.0-12.fc17
then log in and leave karma (feedback).

python-ZSI-2.0-12.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

python-ZSI-2.0-12.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.