Spec URL: http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/python-zope-proxy.spec SRPM URL: http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SRPMS/python-zope-proxy-3.4.2-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: Proxies are special objects which serve as mostly-transparent wrappers around another object, intervening in the apparent behavior of the wrapped object only when necessary to apply the policy (e.g., access checking, location brokering, etc.) for which the proxy is responsible.
This fails to build for me: + /usr/bin/python setup.py build Traceback (most recent call last): File "setup.py", line 19, in <module> from setuptools import setup, Extension ImportError: No module named setuptools Also, 3.5.0 was out well before this review was submitted. If an old version is being submitted intentionally, please make a note of it in the spec.
It is not intentional; I'll update to the latest. As I've mentioned in other reviews, I didn't notice I wasn't fetching mail from this account for the past month or so :(. Sorry for all the delay.
Updated and fixed: http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/python-zope-proxy.spec http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SRPMS/python-zope-proxy-3.5.0-1.fc10.src.rpm
There are some rpmlint warnings: [fab@laptop09 i586]$ rpmlint python-zope-proxy* python-zope-proxy.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/zope/proxy/_zope_proxy_proxy.c python-zope-proxy.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/python2.6/zope.proxy/proxy.h python-zope-proxy.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/zope/proxy/proxy.h 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
- Use %global and not %define. Any progress on this? (Wanting to shoot down the Sage packages...)
New spec, srpm: http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/python-zope-proxy.spec http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SRPMS/python-zope-proxy-3.5.0-2.fc11.src.rpm Changes: Fixed: s/%define/%global/. Moved the .c and .h files to a separate -devel subpackage; I'm not sure if this is the right approach, or if we should just delete them. Thoughts?
I usualy include *.c and *.h in the main package, if they are below %{python_sitelib/arch}, because it's likely, that the main package requires this at runtime. If other packages could/should build against these *.c and *.h, it would be better to place them in %{_includedir} at upstream directly. Because they didn't to that, I assume, that it's just needed internally. Could you test, if the package also works without the installed *.c and *.h?
The tests pass and it seems to not cause any problems when imported in python's interactive mode. Without *.c and *.h files: http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/python-zope-proxy.spec http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SRPMS/python-zope-proxy-3.5.0-3.fc11.src.rpm
Sorry I missed the latest comment. I will try to finish the review soon.
(In reply to comment #9) > Sorry I missed the latest comment. I will try to finish the review soon. @Fabian: Any progress here? If you don't want to continue this one, I can take it :) @Conrad: A new version from upstream with some changes e.g. different source (now a zip file etc)
http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/python-zope-proxy.spec http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SRPMS/python-zope-proxy-3.6.0-1.fc12.src.rpm
The spec file is well-structured. Few notes: * According to upstream setup.py, this package should require python-zope-interface. * The two sed commands are not necessary since the files are with proper EOL. * The -devel package should require python-devel, or more accurately python2-devel. And it should be marked noarch.
I now take over this review request. Spec URL: http://cheeselee.fedorapeople.org/python-zope-proxy.spec SRPM URL: http://cheeselee.fedorapeople.org/python-zope-proxy-3.6.1-1.fc13.src.rpm Changes: - Update to 3.6.1 - Requirement: python-zope-filesystem removed, python-zope-interface added - Spec cleaned up - -devel subpackage set to noarch, added python2-devel as requirement - Include the license rpmlint results: $ rpmlint ./python-zope-event.spec ./python-zope-event.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean ./python-zope-event.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag ./python-zope-event.spec: W: no-%clean-section 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. $ rpmlint ./python-zope-proxy-3.6.1-1.fc13.src.rpm python-zope-proxy.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean python-zope-proxy.src: W: no-buildroot-tag python-zope-proxy.src: W: no-%clean-section 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. $ rpmlint ./python-zope-proxy-3.6.1-1.fc13.i686.rpm python-zope-proxy.i686: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/zope/proxy/_zope_proxy_proxy.so _zope_proxy_proxy.so 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint ./python-zope-proxy-devel-3.6.1-1.fc13.noarch.rpm python-zope-proxy-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint ./python-zope-proxy-debuginfo-3.6.1-1.fc13.i686.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
1. BuildRequires: python-devel Requires: python2-devel Choose either python2-devel or python-devel 2. Group: Development/Languages -> Group: Development/Libraries 3. %check %{__python} setup.py test I suggest to remove %check section and BuildRequires: python-zope-testing from all zope packages, circuitous dependencies is unacceptable for zope modules. Things will become very complicated if we want to update zope version for stable fedora releases.
3.6.1-2 Spec URL: http://cheeselee.fedorapeople.org/python-zope-proxy.spec SRPM URL: http://cheeselee.fedorapeople.org/python-zope-proxy-3.6.1-2.fc13.src.rpm Changes: - Remove %%check section - Group changed from Development/Languages to Development/Libraries - BR: python-devel renamed to python2-devel, python-zope-testing removed
(In reply to comment #13) > I now take over this review request. Please open your own review request and close this one as a dublicate of the new one. See: http://www.fedora.redhat.com/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews (You are resubmitting this package...) Thanks
(In reply to comment #16) > (In reply to comment #13) > > I now take over this review request. > > Please open your own review request and close this one as a dublicate of the > new one. > > See: http://www.fedora.redhat.com/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews > > (You are resubmitting this package...) > > Thanks Thanks for your instruction!
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 629014 ***