Date:    28th September 2010.
Package: python26-mysqldb-1.2.3c1-2.el5.src.rpm.
Review:  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=574545
Koji:    http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2495183

[QUERY] specfiles match:
[PASS] source files match upstream:
$ md5sum MySQL-python-1.2.3c1.tar.gz ../SOURCES/MySQL-python-1.2.3c1.tar.gz 
310dd856e439d070b59ece6dd7a0734d  MySQL-python-1.2.3c1.tar.gz
310dd856e439d070b59ece6dd7a0734d  ../SOURCES/MySQL-python-1.2.3c1.tar.gz
[FAIL] package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
I thing 1.2.3c inicates a 1.2.3 candidate so the release should be 
a 0.N. However 1.2.3 is released now anyway.

[PASS] spec is properly named, cleanly written, and uses macros consistently.
[PASS] dist tag is present.
[PASS] build root is correct.
[PASS] license field matches the actual license.
GPLv2
[PASS] license is open source-compatible.
[FAIL] license text included in package.
[FAIL] latest version is being packaged.
[FAIL] BuildRequires are proper.
[PASS] compiler flags are appropriate.
CFLAGS set correctly for a python package.
[PASS] %clean is present. 
[PASS] package builds in mock.
[FAIL] rpmlint is silent.
[FAIL] final provides and requires are sane
[IGNORE] %check is present and all tests pass:
[PASS] no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
[PASS] owns the directories it creates. 
[PASS] doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
[PASS] no duplicates in %files.
[FAIL] file permissions are appropriate.
See rpmlint messages.
[IGNORE] scriptlets match those on ScriptletSnippets page.
[PASS] code, not content.
[PASS] documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
[PASS] %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
[PASS] no headers.
[PASS] no pkgconfig files.
[PASS] no libtool .la droppings.
[INGORE] desktop files valid and installed properly.

RPMLINT:
+ python26-mysqldb.src: W: unexpanded-macro dependency 
  python26-devel >= %{pyver} %{pyver}

  This is just odd because of how pyver is defined above. Change
  this and all the other %defines to be %global might hopefully fix this.


+ python26-mysqldb.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides 
  /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/_mysql.so _mysql.so()(64bit)
  It provides '_mysql.so()(64bit)'  This can be filtered out. I've
  only recently started doing this and I think it is the correct thing
  to do but nobody seems to do it.


+ python26-mysqldb.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/_mysql.so 0775L
  Can this be fixed? 

QUERY: 
 The tar ball is called MySQL-python*.tar.gz and the existing 2.4 package
 is MySQL-python. For me it makes sense to make it obvious within
 a OS release that this corresponds to the 2.4 package MySQL-python.
 i.e can we consider renamaing the package as MySQL-python26?

FAIL:
+The file GPL has not been included as a doc file.
+There looks to be a 1.2.3 rather than 1.2.3c release can we update to that.
+The Requires explictly mention mysql as needed but this is pulled in any
 anyway by the autogenerated libmysqlclient_r.so.15()(64bit) requirement
 so can be removed. Can you check for mx as well if it is needed.
+ gcc nor  Distutils is needed in BuildRequires since they will always
  be there.

COMMENTS:
+ Use the %global for the defines.
+ The Source0 contain prdownloads, can the 'pr' be  dropped.
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Sourceforge.net
+ You don't set a 
  %{!?python_sitearch: %global python_sitearch %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib(1))")}

  and then make use of that in %files which is the more normall thing
  to do rather than the /usr/%{_lib}. The prefix of '/usr/' certainly
  should go somehow ideally.

I've added some fixes to your SPEC resolving the above, and a few others (rpmlint warnings).  Feel free to use the changes if you like:

SPEC: http://5dollarwhitebox.org/tmp/python26-mysqldb.spec
SRPM: http://5dollarwhitebox.org/tmp/python26-mysqldb-1.2.3c1-3.fc13.src.rpm

A diff of the changes is at:

http://5dollarwhitebox.org/tmp/python26-mysqldb.patch

Hi Dave,

 I'll probably approve this if you incorporate Brians changes into a new package.

 Steve

ping.

Hi Dave, 

Do you mind if I take this review over?

Steve.

(In reply to comment #5)
> Hi Dave, 
> 
> Do you mind if I take this review over?

Sure.   Thanks for your work on this so far, and sorry for the lack of response.

I've removed myself as the assignee, it's not obvious that I can change
who submitted this to me.

New packages:

http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python26-mysqldb/python26-mysqldb-1.2.3-1.src.rpm
http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python26-mysqldb/python26-mysqldb.spec

Dave this is your package but updated 1.2.3 and a slight mistake in your
filter.

Review of python26-mysqldb:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=574545

Package builds with mock in a EL5 machine, and koji also succeeds:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3522613

EL6 and F16 fail, but this is not targetted at those.

 +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing

MUST Items:
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.

rpmlint is not silent, but it looks reasonable.

E: no-binary
W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib

This is the same issue as for nagios packages i guess, python site-packages in under /usr/$libdir/python2.6/site-packages.

[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
Follows the rest of the python26-* packages.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
[-] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.

See below.

[-] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.

Sources mention GPL (in metadata.cfg and README), and according to the guidelines:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses
...
A GPL or LGPL licensed package that lacks any statement of what version that it's licensed under in the source code/program output/accompanying docs is technically licensed under *any* version of the GPL or LGPL, not just the version in whatever COPYING file they include.

So i guess it should be GPL+, not GPLv2 (or at least GPLv2+).

[+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
The source package does not contain the license file.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
# md5sum MySQL-python-1.2.3.tar.gz*
215eddb6d853f6f4be5b4afc4154292f  MySQL-python-1.2.3.tar.gz
215eddb6d853f6f4be5b4afc4154292f  MySQL-python-1.2.3.tar.gzsrc
[+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one supported architecture.
Targeted only at EPEL5, works.
[+] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[-] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires

It does build without, but according to the python guidelines you need python26-devel:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires

[+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro.
Not used.
[+] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun.
Package has a _mysql.so, but not in a default path.
[+] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is
described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage.
Not the case.
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
No header files.
[+] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
No static libraries.
[+] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
No pkgconfig.
[+] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
Only _mysql.so is provided.
[+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release} 
No -devel.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.
[+] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section.
No GUI.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

SHOULD Items:
[=] 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 couldn't find it anywhere, please ask to include.

[+] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
English is ok, add others if you want.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
Checked i386, ppc, x86_64.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as
described.
At least it installs.
[+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[+] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.

Additional python checks:
[+] MUST: Python eggs must be built from source. They cannot simply drop an egg from upstream into the proper directory. (See prebuilt binaries Guidelines for details)
The sources do provide an egginfo directory, but it's not the one being packaged.
[+] MUST: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
Seems to be an issue only for easy_install, not the case.
[+] MUST: When building a compat package, it must install using easy_install -m so it won't conflict with the main package.
Not a multi-version package.
[+] MUST: When building multiple versions (for a compat package) one of the packages must contain a default version that is usable via "import MODULE" with no prior setup.
Not a multi-version package.
[+] SHOULD: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info.
egginfo available.


Additional comments:

- python_sitearch is defined as requested by the guidelines for <=RHEL5 || Fedora < 13

Thanks for the comments. 

A GPL file is present in the test release MySQL-python-1.2.3c1 so 
I won't request that it be added.

License changed to GPL.

The python26-devel is there just not obviously:
$ rpm -qp --requires python26-mysqldb-1.2.3-1.el5.src.rpm 
python26 >= 2.6
python26-devel >= 2.6
mysql-devel  
openssl-devel  
python26-distribute  
gcc
Distutils  

Though this highlights that python26 itself should not be in the 
BR as implicit from python26-devel.

Also gcc is not needed explicitly, removed also.

I think that was everything you mentioned.

New Package

http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python26-mysqldb/python26-mysqldb-1.2.3-2.src.rpm
http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python26-mysqldb/python26-mysqldb.spec


Steve.

The spec link works fine, but the src rpm seems to be missing here:
http://straylen.web.cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python26-mysqldb/

Ooops:

http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python26-mysqldb/python26-mysqldb-1.2.3-2.el5.src.rpm
http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python26-mysqldb/python26-mysqldb.spec

Looks good. I just did a build/install and tested basic usage, looks ok.

APPROVED.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: python26-mysqldb
Short Description:  Interface to MySQL for python2.6
Owners: stevetraylen
Branches: el5
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

python26-mysqldb-1.2.3-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python26-mysqldb-1.2.3-2.el5

Package python26-mysqldb-1.2.3-2.el5:
* should fix your issue,
* was pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository,
* should be available at your local mirror within two days.
Update it with:
# su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=epel-testing python26-mysqldb-1.2.3-2.el5'
as soon as you are able to.
Please go to the following url:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2012-0116/python26-mysqldb-1.2.3-2.el5
then log in and leave karma (feedback).

python26-mysqldb-1.2.3-2.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.