Spec URL: http://dev.laptop.org/~coderanger/rpm/python-pyvserver/python-pyvserver.spec SRPM URL: http://dev.laptop.org/~coderanger/rpm/python-pyvserver/python-pyvserver-1.0-0.0.20070723git639686.src.rpm Description: This is a wrapper around libvserver (util-vserver-lib in Fedora) to allow Python programs to manipulate the VServer system.
# Release tag: As you have an snapshot package which's post-released. 1.20070723git639686%{?dist} instead of 0.0.20070723git639686 # Package name: As a package of python module, a differente name scheme should be set. however the upstream source has already named the base package name of its source with "py"vserver which's enough. So move the name (including spec file name) to pyvserver only. # Source0: I think that you should mention on spec file it's an snapshop link/source # %build stage: As noarch package, the flags CFLAGS= SHOULD be remove (fc.the comment above it's there for reminder). # files: your package own others directoris which're own by other packages. All directories/sub-one which __python-sitelib contains. SHOULD be fix. # Changelog: version changelog need to be fix due tu first issues in this comment.
# Release tag: This is actually a pre-release version. We are trying to get this in to Fedora now so people can test as we develop more. The other things should be fixed in pyvserver-1.0-0.1.20070723git639686. New spec file: http://dev.laptop.org/~coderanger/rpm/pyvserver/pyvserver.spec New SPRM: http://dev.laptop.org/~coderanger/rpm/pyvserver/pyvserver-1.0- 0.1.20070723git639686.src.rpm
New version SRPM: http://dev.laptop.org/~coderanger/rpm/pyvserver/pyvserver-1.0- 0.2.20070723git639686.src.rpm Spec in the same place
New spec file: http://dev.laptop.org/~mstone/releases/pyvserver.spec New SRPM: http://dev.laptop.org/~mstone/releases/pyvserver-1.0-0.2.20070830git1e20c7.fc7.src.rpm
Fixed bug Summary.
rpmlint passes without any warnings on the srpm. rpmlint has ChangeLog warnings on the rpm. W: pyvserver incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0-0.2.20070723git639686 1.0-0.2.20070830git1e20c7.olpc2 Summary: looked at ctypes code which uses dlopen to find the correct library and should work on multiarch depending on which arch version of libc is being used by python. ChangeLog needs updating - missing an entry Checklist: - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. Requires a ChangeLog entry, this can be done on import to CVS - MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Ok - MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines. Ok - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. Ok - MUST: The package must be licensed with an open-source compatible license and meet other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. Ok (GPLv2+) - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. Ok - 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 must be included in %doc. Ok - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. Ok - MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest (http://www.ioccc.org/). Ok - MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. Ok - MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Ok - noarch - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch needs to have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have bugzilla entries during the review process, so they should put this description in the comment until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and replace the long explanation with the bug number. (Extras Only) The bug should be marked as blocking one (or more) of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues: FE-ExcludeArch-x86, FE-ExcludeArch-x64, FE-ExcludeArch-ppc, FE-ExcludeArch-ppc64 Ok - MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. Ok - MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. Ok (no translations) - MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig. An example of the correct syntax for this is: %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig Ok (No %{_libdir} libraries) - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. Ok (package not relocatable) - MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. The exception to this are directories listed explicitly in the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html), as it is safe to assume that those directories exist. Ok - MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. Ok - MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. Ok - MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). Ok - MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. Ok - MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. Ok - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity) Ok(no large docs) - MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. Ok - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. Ok(No libraries) - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. Ok (No static libraries) - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). Ok (No pkgconfig) - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. Ok (no libraries) - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} Ok(No devel) - MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. Ok (No Libraries) - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. This is described in detail in the desktop files section of Packaging Guidelines. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. Ok (no .desktop file) - MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. Ok - MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). See Prepping BuildRoot For %install for details. Ok - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. Ok SHOULD Items: - 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. Ok - license included - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Ok - built in koji as scratch
Did a review. It passes but I will leave it up to Xavier to approve.
> - MUST: The package must be licensed with an open-source compatible > license and meet other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of > Packaging Guidelines. > > Ok (GPLv2+) > > - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual > license. > Ok > This SHOULD be fix to the correct version in spec file.
This pre-release should fix the License field and the ChangeLog warning. New spec file: http://dev.laptop.org/~mstone/releases/SPECS/pyvserver.spec New SRPM: http://dev.laptop.org/~mstone/releases/SRPMS/pyvserver-1.0-0.3.fc7.src.rpm
hm... could you or upstream explain about the version of this package, i can see that its archived with version 3.0 and have an diretory with version 1.0. AFAIK, a sourcetarball is not shipped without version in .tar.gz format
This is a pre-version-1.0 snapshot (which I designated as release 0.3) because the high-level binding (pyvserver) is not yet feature-complete. However, since I am the upstream developer, I can certainly use a different release naming scheme if Fedora so requires. Also, I'm not sure that I understand your question about the tarball's name. Are you saying that it should be named something like pyvserver-1.0-0.3.tar.gz?
Ah, missed that. The version of the package should be 0.3 and the release should be 1 (up the release every time you make a spec file change). If you are doing snapshot releases the version would be the next release version with a release of 0.1.<date>git<git commit hash> where the commit hash doesn't have to be the whole hash. I think the first ten digits is standard fare.
This release should fix the version/release numbering problem. New spec file: http://dev.laptop.org/~mstone/releases/SPECS/pyvserver.spec New SRPM: http://dev.laptop.org/~mstone/releases/SRPMS/pyvserver-0.3.1-1.fc7.src.rpm
ok, now it's more clear. I'll check this next week ;)
Thanks again for the detailed, helpful reviews.
Are there any other packaging bugs that I need to fix before this package can be approved?
Ping? I'm going to approve this review tomorrow if nobody complains.
Package approved.
Can the maintainer please add a cvs template here indicating what they want? See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure and reset the fedora-cvs flag when you are ready.
This package was withdrawn because eventually we dropped vservers from OLPC.