Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~acme/fedora/python-linux-procfs/python-linux-procfs.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~acme/fedora/python-linux-procfs/python-linux-procfs-0.4.3-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Abstractions to extract information from the Linux kernel /proc files.
Before starting review 1)just wonder why linux word used in project name? Can you drop that name and make it upstream also like python-procfs? 2) I can't see any license text in .py files and any separate license text file.
1) Because procfs also exists in other OSes, such as Solaris, where this idea, AFAIK, came from. And the files parsed have very much Linux specific keys and formats, so having "linux" in the name is needed. 2) All the .py files state that the files are under GPLv2, as does the specfile License tag. Is it really a requirement that even with this clearly stated we need a copy of the license in a LICENSE named file? If that is the case, sure, I can do it, and will as well as to submit a patch for rpmlint to warn about that :-)
(In reply to comment #2) > 1) Because procfs also exists in other OSes, such as Solaris, where this idea, > AFAIK, came from. And the files parsed have very much Linux specific keys and > formats, so having "linux" in the name is needed. > That is ok then. > 2) All the .py files state that the files are under GPLv2, as does the specfile > License tag. Is it really a requirement that even with this clearly stated we > need a copy of the license in a LICENSE named file? > > If that is the case, sure, I can do it, and will as well as to submit a patch > for rpmlint to warn about that :-) 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. I will say that either you can add license text as header in all .py files or include separate license text file. see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text you can then include license file as %doc 3) F6 is already EOL and since F7 we have python >= 2.5 so you can change %if "%{python_ver}" >= "2.5" %{python_sitelib}/*.egg-info %endif to %{python_sitelib}/*.egg-info only
Ok, I'll add the LICENSE text and will add is as %doc. 3) That is myself trying to share the same specfile with other distros, from Red Hat, that still don't have eggs, like RHEL5 and 4 :-) If there is no problem in leaving this, I'd prefer to have just one spec file. Do you have any other suggestions before I tag 0.4.4 and push a new tarball out?
(In reply to comment #4) > Ok, I'll add the LICENSE text and will add is as %doc. > ==> thanks. > 3) That is myself trying to share the same specfile with other distros, from > Red Hat, that still don't have eggs, like RHEL5 and 4 :-) If there is no > problem in leaving this, I'd prefer to have just one spec file. ==>That is valid reason then. you can keep if..endif > > Do you have any other suggestions before I tag 0.4.4 and push a new tarball > out? ===> yes. check rpmlint on binary rpm python-linux-procfs.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/python_linux_procfs-0.1-py2.5.egg-info you need to chmod 644 /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/python_linux_procfs-0.1-py2.5.egg-info
I did that and fixed it for the ones that comes from the tarball, but didn't knew how to silence the one about the eggs, will do, tag 0.4.4.
Here it goes, hopefully doing everything we agreed upon here: Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~acme/fedora/python-linux-procfs/python-linux-procfs.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~acme/fedora/python-linux-procfs/python-linux-procfs-0.4.4-1.fc10.src.rpm Thanks a lot!
Review: + package builds in mock (rawhide i386). koji build => http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1118831 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream. 7209283a013e3358bad7dc4c3b19c109 python-linux-procfs-0.4.4.tar.bz2 + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc files present. + BuildRequires are proper. + defattr usage is correct. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code. + no static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage exists. + no .la files. + no translations are available. + Does owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + no scriptlets are used. + Not a GUI app. Suggestions: 1) According to COPYING file license tag should be GPLv2+ from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses, you have included license text that matches GPLv2+ APPROVED.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: python-linux-procfs Short Description: Abstractions to extract information from the Linux kernel /proc files. Owners: acme Branches: F11 InitialCC:
cvs done.