Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/django-picklefield.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/django-picklefield-0.1.6-1.fc13.src.rpm Project URL: http://pypi.python.org/pypi/django-picklefield Description: django-picklefield provides an implementation of a pickled object field. Such fields can contain any picklable objects. The implementation is taken and adopted from Django snippet #1694 by Taavi Taijala, which is in turn based on Django snippet #513 by Oliver Beattie. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2291981 rpmlint output: [fab@laptop011 SRPMS]$ rpmlint django-picklefield-0.1.6-1.fc13.src.rpm django-picklefield.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US picklable -> pickle, picklock, pickerel 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. [fab@laptop011 noarch]$ rpmlint django-picklefield-0.1.6-1.fc13.noarch.rpm django-picklefield.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US picklable -> pickle, picklock, pickerel django-picklefield.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/picklefield/models.py 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
Thanks Fabian; looks pretty good. rpmlint doesn't like the word "picklable", but this neologism is used upstream, so I don't see a problem here. It looks like Django needs the empty models.py file in order to load the app -- could you please confirm this before I approve this review? (a comment in the spec file would have been nice, to save me from researching this myself :) ) - = N/A / = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [/] Rpmlint output is clean: $ rpmlint SPECS/django-picklefield.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint SRPMS/django-picklefield-0.1.6-1.fc13.src.rpm django-picklefield.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US picklable -> pickle, picklock, pickerel 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/django-picklefield-0.1.6-1.fc13.noarch.rpm django-picklefield.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US picklable -> pickle, picklock, pickerel django-picklefield.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/picklefield/models.py 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. [/] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [/] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [/] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Language specific items [/] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [/] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: MIT [-] 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 is included in %doc. [/] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [/] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. (md5sum: 915b25f06fa56245090eab00fd848624) [/] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2564620 [/] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch [/] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly (with the %find_lang macro) [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [/] Package does not bundle copies of system libraries [/] Package is not relocatable. [/] Package must own all directories that it creates. [/] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [-] Permissions on files are set properly [/] %files section includes a %defattr(...) line [/] Package consistently uses macros. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [/] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] -devel packages require base package with full versioning. [/] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [/] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [/] Filenames are valid UTF-8 === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [/] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [/] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested through koji [/] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Tested on: f13 [/] Package functions as described. [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] Subpackages other than -devel require the base package as a fully versioned dependency [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct (normally in -devel) [-] File based requires are sane. [-] Package contains man pages for binaries and scripts.
(In reply to comment #1) > It looks like Django needs the empty models.py file in order to load the app -- > could you please confirm this before I approve this review? (a comment in the > spec file would have been nice, to save me from researching this myself :) ) I'm sorry that you wasted your time because of my lazyness. Yes, the model.py is needed. I'm saying this without being an expert on Django modules. Updated files: Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/django-picklefield.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/django-picklefield-0.1.9-1.fc14.src.rpm
Ruediger Landmann, can you kindly approve this package? I require this as a dependency of something else I am packaging
I am taking over the review since reminders to Ruediger Landmann here as well as offlist haven't been answered. The following is redundant unless you are building for EPEL as well %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 BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) %clean rm -rf %{buildroot} %defattr(-,root,root,-) I would consider removing these. Not a blocker however ==== APPROVED ====
Any update?
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: django-picklefield Short Description: Implementation of a pickled object field Owners: fab Branches: F14, F15 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: django-picklefield New Branches: el6 Owners: sundaram pjp InitialCC:
django-picklefield-0.1.9-1.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/django-picklefield-0.1.9-1.fc14
django-picklefield-0.1.9-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/django-picklefield-0.1.9-1.fc15
django-picklefield-0.1.9-1.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository.
django-picklefield-0.1.9-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.