Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 189755
Review Request: pypoker-eval - Python Interface to poker-eval
Last modified: 2007-11-30 17:11:31 EST
Spec URL: http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/pypoker-eval.spec SRPM URL: http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/pypoker-eval-131.0-2.src.rpm ** NOTE ** You may have to download the srpm from http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/ Description: This package is python adaptor for the poker-eval toolkit for writing programs which simulate or analyze poker games.
I'm not a Python expert, but I promised on IRC that I'd take a look, so.... The only issue I see is the unversioned .so file. If you have versioned libraries, the unversioned link needs to live in the -devel package. Review: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible; license text is included in the package. * source files match upstream: 2ec8a95a5d0880e99ad4695ec113b799 pypoker-eval-131.0.tar.gz 2ec8a95a5d0880e99ad4695ec113b799 pypoker-eval-131.0.tar.gz-srpm * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane. X shared libraries are present. They are internal to python so there's no need to run ldconfig, but the inversioned .so file needs to be moved to the devel package. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * .pyo files are ghosted properly. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. O %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * pkgconfig file is in the -devel package. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app.
Please ignore the fact that I completely missed the %check section. The test suite is not verbose about its passage, but it does pass just fine.
I asked upstream about the library version number, and they mention that it is the first version of the ABI. When the ABI changes, the version number will be bumped, so I think a version number of 0.0.0 is okay.
I had no issues with the version number of the library. It is the unversioned .so file that must move to the -devel package.
yea duh, I'm stupid, I misread the report. Okay, I've fixed up the spec file accordingly, but rpmlint now gives this warning: W: pypoker-eval-devel dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib64/python2.4/site-packages/pypokereval.so pypokereval.so.0.0.0 New files can be found at: Spec URL: http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/pypoker-eval.spec SRPM URL: http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/pypoker-eval-131.0-3.src.rpm ** NOTE ** You may have to download the srpm from http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/
rpmlint seems to be smart enough to not warn about dangling symlinks for .so files in %{_libdir}, but within Python's directory I guess it doesn't know what to do. Anyway, the new package builds fine and ignoring the rpmlint false positive everything is clean. APPROVED