Bug 921304
Summary: | Review Request: python-pecan - A lean WSGI object-dispatching web framework | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Pádraig Brady <p> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart> |
Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | kchamart, notting, package-review |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | kchamart:
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: | 2014-01-27 08:23:03 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: | 956424 |
Description
Pádraig Brady
2013-03-14 00:18:33 UTC
Initial review from fedora-review tool. More to follow with manaul review details. kashyap@SRPMS$ cat python-pecan/review.txt Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/kashyap/rpmbuild/SRPMS /python-pecan/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: 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]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Python: [ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.1.29 starting... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Mock Version: 1.1.29 INFO: Mock Version: 1.1.29 Start: lock buildroot INFO: installing package(s): /home/kashyap/rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-pecan/results/python-pecan-0.2.1-1.fc18.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # ['/usr/bin/yum', '--installroot', '/var/lib/mock/fedora-18-x86_64/root/', 'install', '/home/kashyap/rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-pecan/results/python-pecan-0.2.1-1.fc18.noarch.rpm', '--setopt=tsflags=nocontexts'] Error: Package: python-pecan-0.2.1-1.fc18.noarch (/python-pecan-0.2.1-1.fc18.noarch) Requires: python-WebTest >= 1.3.1 You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem Error: Package: python-pecan-0.2.1-1.fc18.noarch (/python-pecan-0.2.1-1.fc18.noarch) Requires: python-WebOb >= 1.2 Error: Package: python-pecan-0.2.1-1.fc18.noarch (/python-pecan-0.2.1-1.fc18.noarch) Requires: python-Mako >= 0.4.0 You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-pecan-0.2.1-1.fc18.noarch.rpm python-pecan.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pecan python-pecan.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gunicorn_pecan 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- python-pecan (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python python(abi) python-Mako python-WebOb python-WebTest python-argparse python-setuptools python-simplegeneric Provides -------- python-pecan: python-pecan MD5-sum check ------------- http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/pecan/pecan-0.2.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1c567c14ae8902dd3c43f9a6ff59c8e519a455b929e9136aa570d78fa780f423 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1c567c14ae8902dd3c43f9a6ff59c8e519a455b929e9136aa570d78fa780f423 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29 Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --rpm-spec -n python-pecan-0.2.1-1.fc18.src.rpm kashyap@SRPMS$ Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/ceilometer/python-pecan.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/ceilometer/python-pecan-0.2.1-2.fc18.src.rpm Description: A WSGI object-dispatching web framework, designed to be lean and fast with few dependencies Fedora Account System Username: pbrady Scratch build success: --------------------------------- kashyap@SRPMS$ koji build --scratch f19 python-pecan-0.2.1-2.fc18.src.rpm Uploading srpm: python-pecan-0.2.1-2.fc18.src.rpm [====================================] 100% 00:00:05 124.60 KiB 23.53 KiB/sec Created task: 5120601 Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5120601 Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)... 5120601 build (f19, python-pecan-0.2.1-2.fc18.src.rpm): open (ppc12.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 5120604 buildArch (python-pecan-0.2.1-2.fc18.src.rpm, noarch): free 5120604 buildArch (python-pecan-0.2.1-2.fc18.src.rpm, noarch): free -> open (buildvm-06.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 5120604 buildArch (python-pecan-0.2.1-2.fc18.src.rpm, noarch): open (buildvm-06.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 1 open 1 done 0 failed 5120601 build (f19, python-pecan-0.2.1-2.fc18.src.rpm): open (ppc12.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 0 open 2 done 0 failed 5120601 build (f19, python-pecan-0.2.1-2.fc18.src.rpm) completed successfully --------------------------------- Still see install failures from review.txt But, still there are: Installation errors ------------------- . . . INFO: mock.py version 1.1.29 starting... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Mock Version: 1.1.29 INFO: Mock Version: 1.1.29 Start: lock buildroot INFO: installing package(s): /home/kashyap/rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-pecan/results/python-pecan-0.2.1-2.fc18.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # ['/usr/bin/yum', '--installroot', '/var/lib/mock/fedora-18-x86_64/root/', 'install', '/home/kashyap/rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-pecan/results/python-pecan-0.2.1-2.fc18.noarch.rpm', '--setopt=tsflags=nocontexts'] Error: Package: python-pecan-0.2.1-2.fc18.noarch (/python-pecan-0.2.1-2.fc18.noarch) Requires: python-WebTest >= 1.3.1 You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem Error: Package: python-pecan-0.2.1-2.fc18.noarch (/python-pecan-0.2.1-2.fc18.noarch) Requires: python-WebOb >= 1.2 Error: Package: python-pecan-0.2.1-2.fc18.noarch (/python-pecan-0.2.1-2.fc18.noarch) Requires: python-Mako >= 0.4.0 You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest ----------------------------- Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/ceilometer/python-pecan.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/ceilometer/python-pecan-0.2.1-3.fc18.src.rpm Description: A WSGI object-dispatching web framework, designed to be lean and fast with few dependencies Fedora Account System Username: pbrady Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/ceilometer/python-pecan.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/ceilometer/python-pecan-0.2.1-4.fc18.src.rpm Description: A WSGI object-dispatching web framework, designed to be lean and fast with few dependencies Fedora Account System Username: pbrady Thanks Pádraig. No installation failures now. Manual review upcoming. Here's fedora-review output. ======================================= kashyap@SRPMS$ cat /home/kashyap/rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-pecan/review.txt Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/kashyap/rpmbuild/SRPMS /python-pecan/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: 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]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Python: [ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-pecan-0.2.1-4.fc19.noarch.rpm python-pecan.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pecan python-pecan.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gunicorn_pecan 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-pecan python-pecan.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pecan python-pecan.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gunicorn_pecan 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python-pecan (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python python(abi) python-argparse python-mako python-setuptools python-simplegeneric python-webob1.2 python-webtest Provides -------- python-pecan: python-pecan MD5-sum check ------------- http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/pecan/pecan-0.2.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1c567c14ae8902dd3c43f9a6ff59c8e519a455b929e9136aa570d78fa780f423 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1c567c14ae8902dd3c43f9a6ff59c8e519a455b929e9136aa570d78fa780f423 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --rpm-spec -n python-pecan-0.2.1-4.fc18.src.rpm kashyap@SRPMS$ ======================================= Scratch build successful with the latest SRPM from comment #5 ----------------------------- kashyap@SRPMS$ koji build --scratch f19 python-pecan-0.2.1-4.fc18.src.rpm Uploading srpm: python-pecan-0.2.1-4.fc18.src.rpm [====================================] 100% 00:00:19 124.61 KiB 6.41 KiB/sec Created task: 5121422 Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5121422 Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)... 5121422 build (f19, python-pecan-0.2.1-4.fc18.src.rpm): free 5121422 build (f19, python-pecan-0.2.1-4.fc18.src.rpm): free -> open (buildvm-22.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 5121423 buildArch (python-pecan-0.2.1-4.fc18.src.rpm, noarch): open (buildvm-09.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 5121423 buildArch (python-pecan-0.2.1-4.fc18.src.rpm, noarch): open (buildvm-09.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 1 open 1 done 0 failed 5121422 build (f19, python-pecan-0.2.1-4.fc18.src.rpm): open (buildvm-22.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 0 open 2 done 0 failed 5121422 build (f19, python-pecan-0.2.1-4.fc18.src.rpm) completed successfully ----------------------------- Here goes manual review. I made inline comments where appropriate. Also thanks to Pádraig for answering some of my questions. ===== Manual review of MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. - BSD [-]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. - rpm -qlp results/python-pecan-0.2.1-4.fc19.noarch.rpm confirms it [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/kashyap/rpmbuild/SRPMS /python-pecan/licensecheck.txt This can be waived. ============================= kashyap@python-pecan$ cat /home/kashyap/rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-pecan/licensecheck.txt MIT/X11 (BSD like) ------------------ /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/pecan-0.2.1/pecan/middleware/recursive.py Unknown or generated -------------------- /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/pecan-0.2.1/setup.py kashyap@python-pecan$ ============================= [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files - This is OK. rpmlint doesn't complain about it. Python: [-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. - We don't rely on Python Eggs, so the above is not applicable. Discussed this with Pádraig. [ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python ===== Manual review of Should items ===== Generic: [x]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. It's a noarch rpm: ============================= kashyap@python-pecan$ ls results/ available_pkgs build.log installed_pkgs python-pecan-0.2.1-4.fc19.noarch.rpm python-pecan-0.2.1-4.fc19.src.rpm root.log state.log kashyap@python-pecan$ ============================= [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. Summary: Everything looks good to me. Package approved. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-pecan Short Description: A lean WSGI object-dispatching web framework Owners: pbrady Branches: f17 f18 f19 el6 InitialCC: Git done (by process-git-requests). python-pecan-0.2.1-4.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-pecan-0.2.1-4.fc18 python-pecan-0.2.1-4.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. |