Bug 858106

Summary: Review Request: python-rospkg - Utilities for ROS package, stack, and distribution information
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Rich Mattes <richmattes>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: notting, package-review, sanjay.ankur
Target Milestone: ---Flags: sanjay.ankur: fedora‑review+
limburgher: fedora‑cvs+
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2012-12-20 11:29:57 EST Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Description Rich Mattes 2012-09-17 21:34:27 EDT
Spec URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/rospackages/rospkg/python-rospkg.spec
SRPM URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/rospackages/rospkg/python-rospkg-1.0.6-1.fc17.src.rpm

The ROS packaging system simplifies development and distribution of code
libraries. It enable you to easily specify dependencies between code
libraries, easily interact with those libraries from the command-line, and
release your code for others to use.

Fedora Account System Username: rmattes

$ rpmlint python-rospkg.spec ../RPMS/noarch/python-rospkg-1.0.6-1.fc17.noarch.rpm 
python-rospkg.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: ros-rospkg-1.0.6-0-g88888b7.tar.gz
1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

The package is a github snapshot, with download directions in the comments.
Comment 1 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2012-09-21 00:18:43 EDT
Hi Rich,

I'll review this package. 

Warm regards,
Comment 2 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2012-09-21 02:37:36 EDT

[+] OK
[-] NA
[?] Issue

[+] Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
[+] Spec file matches base package name.
[+] Spec has consistant macro usage.
[?] Meets Packaging Guidelines.
It would be better to build in the build section using

%python setup.py build

and then only installing in the install section using

%python setup.py --skip-build

as described in the Python packaging guidelines here:

It ensures that the different packaging stages happen in the correct sections
where they're supposed to.

[+] License
[+] License field in spec matches
[?] License file included in package
I couldn't find a COPYING or LICENSE file. Please consider adding one if

[+] Spec in American English
[+] Spec is legible.
[-] Sources match upstream md5sum:
Generated from github checkout. NA

[-] Package needs ExcludeArch
[+] BuildRequires correct
[-] Spec handles locales/find_lang
[-] Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
[+] Package is code or permissible content.
[-] Doc subpackage needed/used.
[+] Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.

[+] Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
[+] Package has no duplicate files in %files.
[+] Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
[+] Package owns all the directories it creates.
[+] No rpmlint output.
[ankur@ankur SRPMS]$ rpmlint ../SPECS/python-rospkg.spec ./python-rospkg-1.0.6-1.fc17.src.rpm /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/python-rospkg-1.0.6-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
../SPECS/python-rospkg.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
python-rospkg.src: W: invalid-url Source0: ros-rospkg-1.0.6-0-g88888b7.tar.gz
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
[ankur@ankur SRPMS]$

[+] final provides and requires are sane:
== python-rospkg-1.0.6-1.fc19.noarch.rpm ==
python-rospkg = 1.0.6-1.fc19

python(abi) = 2.7

== python-rospkg-1.0.6-1.fc19.src.rpm ==


[ankur@ankur result]$


[+] Should build in mock.
[+] Should build on all supported archs
[?] Should function as described.
I haven't checked on this 

[-] Should have sane scriptlets.
[-] Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.
[+] Should have dist tag
[+] Should package latest version
[-] check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews)


1. I don't see any major issues. The building in %build section is the only
change required. 

2. A cosmetic change would be to use something like

instead of

just for clarity.

Please make the small changes required, and I'll approve the package :)
Warm regards,
Comment 3 Rich Mattes 2012-09-21 20:15:51 EDT
I've made the two updates to the package, you can find it at:

Spec URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/rospackages/rospkg/python-rospkg.spec
SRPM URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/rospackages/rospkg/python-rospkg-1.0.6-2.fc17.src.rpm

Upstream doesn't bundle a COPYING or LICENSE file, but I can file a bug and ask them to do so.
Comment 4 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2012-09-23 05:43:05 EDT
Hi Rich,

Looks good. Please do file a bug asking upstream to add a LICENSE file. 


Warm regards,
Comment 5 Rich Mattes 2012-09-23 13:55:01 EDT
New Package SCM Request
Package Name: python-rospkg
Short Description: Utilities for ROS package, stack, and distribution information
Owners: rmattes
Branches: f17 f18 el6
Comment 6 Gwyn Ciesla 2012-09-23 21:14:40 EDT
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2012-09-24 21:09:20 EDT
python-rospkg-1.0.6-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2012-09-25 02:04:29 EDT
python-rospkg-1.0.6-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.
Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2012-12-20 11:29:59 EST
python-rospkg-1.0.6-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.