Spec URL: http://download.berlios.de/python/spe.spec SRPM URL: http://download.berlios.de/python/spe-0.8.4.h-1.fc8.src.rpm Description: SPE it is a Python IDE editor released rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/spe-0.8.4.h-1.fc8.noarch.rpm spe.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/spe/_spe/Blender_signature.py "BPY" spe.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/spe/_spe/spe_blender.py "BPY" spe.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/spe/_spe/winpdb_blender.py "BPY" rpmlint does not recognize shebang #!BPY This shebang makes it possible Blender to recognize script as a plugins
!BPY It tells Blender that this is a Blender script, and therefore it will consider it when scanning for scripts. http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Blender_3D:_Noob_to_Pro/Advanced_Tutorials/Python_Scripting/Export_scripts
Is your first package, and i am seeking a sponsor
sorry, Is my first package, and i am seeking a sponsor
New version Bug correction: Spec URL: http://download.berlios.de/python/spe.spec SRPM URL: http://download.berlios.de/python/spe-0.8.4.h-0.2.fc8.src.rpm I search a sponsor Thanks
For 0.8.4.h-0.2: ! Release number - On Fedora rpm release number "0.X...." is for pre-release sources. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines For post-release sources, you should not use 0.X. However you may want to use 0.X as release number until this review is passed. In such case you can modify the release number after. * License ------------------------------------------------------------ _spe/dialogs/stcStyleEditor.py wxWindows (less strict than LGPLv2+) _spe/doc/about.htm GPLv2+ _spe/plugins/XRCed/ BSD _spe/plugins/kiki/kiki.py GPLv2+ _spe/plugins/pychecker2/symbols.py python (GPL compatible) _spe/plugins/winpdb/ GPLv2+ _spe/plugins/wxGlade MIT _spe/sm/wxp/ wxWindows ------------------------------------------------------------- - The license tag should be "GPLv2+" ! Note: simply putting GPLv3 license text does not mean that the software is under GPLv3. It just means that it is under GPL _at any version_: * BuildRequies - "BuildRequires: python" is needed. Actually now python is not in default mock buildroot and without python the needed macro python_sitelib is not defined. * symlinks -------------------------------------------------------------- ln -s ../lib/python2.5/site-packages/%{name}/_spe/SPE.py %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{name} -------------------------------------------------------------- - I guess the following is better: -------------------------------------------------------------- ln -s $(echo %python_sitelib | sed -e 's|%{_prefix}|..|')/%{name}/_spe/SPE.py \ %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{name} -------------------------------------------------------------- * Timestamp - When using "cp" or "install" commands, add "-p" option to keep timestamps on installed files. * Scriptlets - Well, I guess %_bindir/update-desktop-database merely fails, however for safety Fedora recommends to add "|| :" at the end; http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets * rpmlint issues: --------------------------------------------------------------- spe.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/spe/_spe/Blender_signature.py "BPY" spe.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/spe/_spe/spe_blender.py "BPY" spe.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/spe/_spe/winpdb_blender.py "BPY" --------------------------------------------------------------- - I guess all these shebangs should be replaced with /usr/bin/python. * python modules dependency - Please check if all python modules related rpms are correctly added as "Requires" of this package. * As far as I verified the codes (from below), ---------------------------------------------------------------- $ rpm -ql spe | grep -v /usr/share/doc | LC_ALL=C xargs grep -h 'import ' | grep -v Binary | sed -e 's|^[ \t][ \t]*||' | sed -e '/^#/d' | sort | uniq ---------------------------------------------------------------- it seems at least "python-imaging tkinter" should be added to Requires: ---------------------------------------------------------------- _spe/sm/wxp/pil.py: import Image plugins/pychecker/OptionTypes.py: import Tkinter ----------------------------------------------------------------- however it may be that these dependencies are only optional. * Also I could not find out what packages meet the below "import" requirements. ----------------------------------------------------------------- from htmlCss.css import css from htmlCss.html import html import _winreg import menu import msvcrt import psyco import quixote ----------------------------------------------------------------- ! Documents - "COPYING", "NEWS" files are installed under both /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/spe/ and /usr/share/doc/spe-<version> Not a blocker, however verify if both are needed. Then: ------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: Before being sponsored: This package will be accepted with another few work. But before I accept this package, someone (I am a candidate) must sponsor you. Once you are sponsored, you have the right to review other submitters' review requests and approve the packages formally. For this reason, the person who want to be sponsored (like you) are required to "show that you have an understanding of the process and of the packaging guidelines" as is described on : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored Usually there are two ways to show this. A. submit other review requests with enough quality. B. Do a "pre-review" of other person's review request (at the time you are not sponsored, you cannot do a formal review) When you have submitted a new review request or have pre-reviewed other person's review request, please write the bug number on this bug report so that I can check your comments or review request. Fedora package collection review requests which are waiting for someone to review can be checked on: http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html (NOTE: please don't choose "Merge Review") Review guidelines are described mainly on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets ------------------------------------------------------------
for Shebang ----------------------------------------------------------------------- !BPY It tells Blender that this is a Blender script, and therefore it will consider it when scanning for scripts. http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Blender_3D:_Noob_to_Pro/Advanced_Tutorials/Python_Scripting/Export_scripts here for this script need use shebang !BPY for blender plugins
Well, as this script does not have executional permission they are ignored by /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/find-requires so it is okay. So please fix the rest issues.
ping?
i put the new spec and src.rpm this week
Hi I faced the problem on the ln -s in one of my package (pype) recently. Instead of using the ln -S which I am not really fond of I used: mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/ echo "#!/bin/sh exec python %{python_sitelib}/%{name}/pype.py" >> $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/%{name} chmod +x $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/%{name} I do not know what is the best solution, but I prefered that one.
(In reply to comment #10) > I faced the problem on the ln -s in one of my package (pype) recently. > Instead of using the ln -S which I am not really fond of I used: > > mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/ > echo "#!/bin/sh > exec python %{python_sitelib}/%{name}/pype.py" >> > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/%{name} > chmod +x $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/%{name} > > I do not know what is the best solution, but I prefered that one. So... how does your comment of this related to this review request? I don't know what problem you had on your package, and are you sure that the problem you saw on your package also applies to this package? (although I am not familiar with this package...)
well because the same thing can be applied to this package instead of the ln -s. Up to both of you to see which one you prefer.
ping again?
I will close this bug as NOTABUG is no response is received from the reporter within ONE WEEK.
Once closing If someone wants to import this package into Fedora, please submit a new review request and mark this bug as a duplicate of the new one. Thank you!
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 481022 ***