Spec URL: http://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/python-zc.buildout.spec SRPM URL: http://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-zc.buildout-1.4.1-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: System for managing Python development buildouts
This package blocks any updates to plone. I'll need it to push out any builds/updates to the plone packages.
(The submitter should not change fedora-review flag, revoking)
Hi, I'm here for pre-review: ===== $ rpmlint python-zc.buildout.spec python-zc.buildout.spec: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 9) 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Please use either spaces or tabs. ===== You could use macros on 'rm'. You should put 'ZPLv2.1' at license field. Where is the ZPL license in the package?
Updated to fix rpmlint warnings. Updated License field. Updated to use %{__rm} macro. The ZPL 2.1 license is not shipped with the upstream source. http://www.zope.org/Resources/ZPL which is GPL compatible and is approved for use with Fedora: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses (see ZPL 2.1) Spec URL: http://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/python-zc.buildout.spec SRPM URL: http://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-zc.buildout-1.4.1-1.fc12.src.rpm
Hoping for some progress on this. Plone 4 utilizes zope 2.12.x which supports python 2.6 so we can get this stack back into Fedora. However, a lot more projects are utilizing zc.buildout. I've updated the package to the lastest stable release. SPEC URL: http://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/python-zc.buildout.spec SRPM URL: http://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-zc.buildout-1.4.3-1.fc13.src.rpm
Taking for review. I think "fixing" the spec to use %{__rm} doesn't add anything useful and if you wish you should just revert back to using plain rm. There was a recent discussion about the %__ macros in fedora-devel list and the consensus was that they are useless. Are the .txt files in site-packages/zc/buildout/ and site-packages/zc.buildout-1.4.1-py2.6.egg-info/ needed? Perhaps they'd be more useful in the standard docdir? You could do something like this at the end of %install to move them to docdir: mkdir _docdir find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{python_sitelib}/ -name "*.txt" -exec echo mv {} _docdir/ \; and then later: %files %doc _docdir/* > # Remove CFLAGS=... for noarch packages (unneeded) > CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" %{__python} setup.py build You can remove CFLAGS= as you commented yourself. Current python guidelines [1] suggest to wrap the sitelib definition in an %if, as it's not needed in F13 and up. But this is just nitpicking and no real need to change it. %if ! (0%{?fedora} > 12 || 0%{?rhel} > 5) %{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib())")} %endif [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
python-zc.buildout.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary buildout 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. SPEC URL: http://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/python-zc.buildout.spec SRPM URL: http://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-zc.buildout-1.4.3-2.fc13.src.rpm There is no upstream manpage and I'm not sure there should really be one.
Fedora review python-zc.buildout-1.4.3-2.fc13.src.rpm 2010-06-20 + OK ! needs attention (In reply to comment #7) > python-zc.buildout.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary buildout > 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. > There is no upstream manpage and I'm not sure there should really be one. Yes, I also think there's no real need for a man page. Even Debian (usually very strict about man pages) doesn't have one for this package. + rpmlint warning can be ignored + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Naming Guildelines [1] say that a package must not use . as a separator, but I think it's OK in this case: - rpm / yum seems to handle it just fine - there are already a few packages which have . in their names (openoffice.org and java-1.6.0-openjdk for example) - upstream uses . in package name - debian also calls it python-zc.buildout [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageNamingGuidelines#Separators + Spec file name matches the base package name + The package follows the Packaging Guidelines + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The license field in the spec file matches the actual license n/a The package doesn't contain a separate license file and thus it's also not in %doc + Spec file is written in American English + Spec file is legible + Upstream sources match sources in the srpm. md5sum: 527cece8ca7ee087dc4e23360bbd9bcb zc.buildout-1.4.3.tar.gz 527cece8ca7ee087dc4e23360bbd9bcb Download/zc.buildout-1.4.3.tar.gz + The package builds in koji n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires look sane n/a The spec file handles locales properly + Package does not bundle copies of system libraries n/a Does not use Prefix: /usr + Package owns all directories it creates + No duplicate files in %files + Permissions are properly set and %files has %defattr + %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT + Consistent use of macros + Package contains code or permissible content n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + Files marked %doc should not affect package n/a Header files should be in -devel n/a Static libraries should be in -static n/a Library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base n/a Packages should not contain libtool .la files n/a Packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file + Packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages APPROVED
This package should renamed to python-zc-buildout before import to cvs.
Note: Normally all xxx.yyy python should be renamed to python-xxx-xxx, because namespace for those modules are xxx/yyy See http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=8780
(In reply to comment #5) > Hoping for some progress on this. Plone 4 utilizes zope 2.12.x which supports > python 2.6 so we can get this stack back into Fedora. However, a lot more > projects are utilizing zc.buildout. I've updated the package to the lastest > stable release. Zope2 is already packaged :) See http://cheeselee.fedorapeople.org/yum/zope/ Maybe you can work together with cheeselee after python2.7 is available in F14, some of those modules need patch to make it compatible with python2.7.
I list all the dependecies of Zope2 in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Zope2 I also add some informations on your wiki page http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Zope, next we need to create some communication way e.g. mailist IRC
Fixed missing assigned to.
Jonathan, what's the status here?
It is not acceptable that this package owns the directory %{python_sitelib}/zc/{,/recipe/} ! We should decide a more sophisticated and uniform mechanism to deal with namespaces. I will soon post a proposal to the python-devel mailing list. And package name usually contains no '.', 'python-zc-buildout' is preferred. This package requires 'python-setuptools'. I also drafted a version of python-zc-buildout.spec: http://fedorapeople.org/gitweb?p=cheeselee/public_git/zope-rpm.git;a=blob;f=python-zc-buildout/F-13/python-zc-buildout.spec;hb=master
It is not acceptable that this package owns the directory %{python_sitelib}/zc/ ! We should decide a more sophisticated and uniform mechanism to deal with namespaces. I will soon post a proposal to the python-devel mailing list. And package name usually contains no '.', 'python-zc-buildout' is preferred. This package requires 'python-setuptools'. I also drafted a version of python-zc-buildout.spec: http://fedorapeople.org/gitweb?p=cheeselee/public_git/zope-rpm.git;a=blob;f=python-zc-buildout/F-13/python-zc-buildout.spec;hb=master
Jonathan, are you still interested in this package?
Jonathan, could you address the issues pointed out by Chen and Robin? Setting fedora‑review flag back to "?".
Hi Toshio, Would you mind to help us to point out which name is suitable for this package, python-zc.buildout or python-zc-buildout? Currently, debian/ubuntu use python-zc.buildout, however some existed packages in fedora repo use python-zope-* as package names.
""" When naming packages for Fedora, the maintainer must use the dash '-' as the delimiter for name parts. The maintainer must NOT use an underscore '_', a plus '+', or a period '.' as a delimiter. There are a few exceptions to the no underscore '_' rule. [But no exceptions for the '+' or '.'] """ https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Separators If you think this should be changed, you can submit a draft to the packaging committee.
Jonathan, could you please respond?
I take over this review request. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 629324 ***