Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 494517
Review Request: python-xkit - A simple, transparent and easy to extend xorg parser
Last modified: 2013-03-13 01:44:03 EDT
Spec URL: http://sundaram.fedorapeople.org/packages/x-kit.spec SRPM URL: http://sundaram.fedorapeople.org/packages/x-kit-0.4.2-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: A simple, transparent and easy to extend xorg parser
- Why do you remove the egg? It should be included: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python/Eggs - Drop explicit Requires: python, it is automatically picked up. - For clearness, remove "--record=INSTALLED_FILES" from install phase, since the record isn't used for anything. - Add "-O1 --skip-build" to install phase. - Extend description. Maybe use that from upstream: A kit to manipulate xorg.conf which is aimed at both developers and users. It is a distribution and desktop agnostic project. X-kit is composed of the following programs: * XorgParser: a simple, transparent and easy to extend xorg parser. * XorgValidator: a program which uses X-parser, tries to make sense of xorg.conf and operates accordingly. * XorgConfig-gtk: a simple GUI to xorg.conf * XorgConfig-kde: a simple GUI to xorg.conf ------- Review: rpmlint output: x-kit.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/x-kit-0.4.2/examples/0-example.py x-kit.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/x-kit-0.4.2/examples/1-example.py x-kit.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/x-kit-0.4.2/tests/run x-kit.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/x-kit-0.4.2/tests/run /usr/bin/python 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. - Remove executable perms in setup phase, after that rpmlint output becomes clean. MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. OK MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. OK MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. OK MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. OK MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. OK MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK MUST: Clean section exists. OK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. OK MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. OK MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. OK MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. OK MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. OK MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. OK MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. OK MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. OK MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK
The naming of this package does not look correct, python libraries should live in the python- namespace. i.e. python-xkit would do.
(In reply to comment #2) > The naming of this package does not look correct, python libraries should live > in the python- namespace. i.e. python-xkit would do. You're right, the Python section of the Naming Guidelines does state that the names of packages that are purely in Python must either begin with py or get python- as a prefix. So the correct name of this package is python-x-kit.
Fix issues noted in review. I am not extending the description since I haven't decided on packaging rest of the components beyond just the parser for now. http://sundaram.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-xkit.spec http://sundaram.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-xkit-0.4.2-2.fc10.src.rpm
Okay, the package should be good to go now. APPROVED PS. For the sake of clearness, move chmod -x tests/* examples/* to the prer phase after setup, since it has nothing to do with install...
I have moved chmod into the prep stage and updated spec. Thanks for the quick review. Note to cvs admin. I only need a rawhide branch. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: python-xkit Short Description: A simple, transparent and easy to extend xorg parser Owners: sundaram Branches: InitialCC:
Since this package is just coming in for the dontzap package, is it still a good idea, given http://who-t.blogspot.com/2009/04/zapping-server.html ?
Looks like there are some other packages that use this, not just dontzap. cvs done.
Ping, are you going to import?
There has been a build failure. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=97763 I haven't had time to look into it yet.
I have build it now.