Bug 854679

Summary: Review Request: python-sudsds - A python SOAP client modified for usage with Czech Databox
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Jaroslav Škarvada <jskarvad>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Jan Synacek <jsynacek>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: jsynacek, notting, package-review
Target Milestone: ---Flags: jsynacek: fedora-review+
gwync: 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: 2012-12-20 15:34:45 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:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 854690    

Description Jaroslav Škarvada 2012-09-05 14:35:50 UTC
Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~jskarvad/datovka/python-sudsds.spec
SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~jskarvad/datovka/python-sudsds-1.0-1.fc17.src.rpm
Description: sudsds is a fork of the suds library modified to meet the needs for interaction with the servers of Czech Databox. The modifications are related to HTTPS proxy, server certificate validation and other SSL related functions.
Fedora Account System Username: jskarvad

Actually this is a fork of our python-suds package maintained by CZ.NIC. It is needed by dslib which is needed by Datovka (interface to Czech Databox AKA Datové schránky). CZ.NIC developers are open to idea of merging their changes to original suds (ticket: https://git.nic.cz/redmine/issues/2004). But it doesn't seem to be trivial task. I also started github project to help them with the merge (https://github.com/yarda/suds). In the meantime it would be great to have python-sudsds in Fedora.

Comment 1 Jaroslav Škarvada 2012-09-05 14:41:18 UTC
*** Bug 854681 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 2 Jan Synacek 2012-09-13 11:09:08 UTC
Specfile:
- use %global instead of %define

- do not use BuildRoot:

- do not use rm -rf %{buildroot} in install section (unless you intend to use the package for EPEL)

- do not use %defattr (unless you intend to use the package for EPEL)

- also, I believe there is a typo on line 36:
  + rm -f {buildroot}... should probably be rm -f %{buildroot}...

Also, rpmlint complains a lot about incorrect fsf addresses:
python-sudsds.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sudsds/transport/https.py
python-sudsds.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sudsds/bindings/__init__.py
python-sudsds.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sudsds/mx/typer.py

That should probably be reported and corrected by upstream.

Other than that, I don't see any more things that need correction. The package also does not conflict with 'python-suds' that is already present in Fedora.

Comment 3 Jan Synacek 2012-09-13 11:28:35 UTC
A few more things after all.

According to python packaging guidelines, you don't have to define python_sitelib macro on the first line in the spec.

"In RHEL 5 and older, python2 packages that install python modules need to define python_sitelib or python_sitearch macros that tell where to find the python directory that modules are installed in. This is not needed in current Fedora or with python3 modules as the macros are defined by rpm and the python3-devel package."

Also, instead of calling 'python' directly, use the %{__python} macro.

Comment 4 Jaroslav Škarvada 2012-09-17 15:26:29 UTC
Thanks for the review.

> Specfile:
> - use %global instead of %define
>
> According to python packaging guidelines, you don't have to define
> python_sitelib macro on the first line in the spec.
>
> - do not use BuildRoot:
> 
> - do not use rm -rf %{buildroot} in install section (unless you intend to
> use the package for EPEL)
> 
> - do not use %defattr (unless you intend to use the package for EPEL)
> 
I think I needn't, but I can. Personally I am keeping compatibility with old EPELs everywhere, but currently python-dslib is not compatible thus I also removed it from this package.

> - also, I believe there is a typo on line 36:
>   + rm -f {buildroot}... should probably be rm -f %{buildroot}...
> 
Thanks for the catch, fixed.

> Also, rpmlint complains a lot about incorrect fsf addresses:
> python-sudsds.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sudsds/transport/https.py
> python-sudsds.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sudsds/bindings/__init__.py
> python-sudsds.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sudsds/mx/typer.py
> 
> That should probably be reported and corrected by upstream.
> 
I am going to report this.

> Also, instead of calling 'python' directly, use the %{__python} macro.
Fixed.

New versions:
Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~jskarvad/datovka/python-sudsds.spec
SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~jskarvad/datovka/python-sudsds-1.0-2.fc17.src.rpm

Comment 5 Jan Synacek 2012-09-24 12:08:20 UTC
No other problems that I can see. Approving.

Comment 6 Jaroslav Škarvada 2012-09-24 12:41:36 UTC
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: python-sudsds
Short Description: A python SOAP client modified for usage with Czech Databox
Owners: jskarvad
Branches: f17 f18
InitialCC:

Comment 7 Gwyn Ciesla 2012-09-24 12:56:59 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2012-09-25 15:55:47 UTC
datovka-2.1.2-2.fc18,python-dslib-2.1.2-2.fc18,python-sudsds-1.0-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/datovka-2.1.2-2.fc18,python-dslib-2.1.2-2.fc18,python-sudsds-1.0-2.fc18

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2012-09-25 15:58:29 UTC
python-sudsds-1.0-2.fc17,python-dslib-2.1.2-2.fc17,datovka-2.1.2-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-sudsds-1.0-2.fc17,python-dslib-2.1.2-2.fc17,datovka-2.1.2-2.fc17

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2012-09-26 09:08:58 UTC
python-sudsds-1.0-2.fc17, python-dslib-2.1.2-2.fc17, datovka-2.1.2-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2012-12-20 15:34:48 UTC
datovka-2.1.2-2.fc18, python-dslib-2.1.2-2.fc18, python-sudsds-1.0-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.