Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6594808/Fedora/pyscard.spec
SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6594808/Fedora/pyscard-1.6.12-1.fc14.src.rpm
1st attempt at packaging for Fedora -- rpmbuild on my F14 box works ok, and I'm running the built rpm to try and get my touchatag reader working with RFIDIOt.
rpmlint on spec:
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint on src.rpm:
pyscard.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US smartcard -> smart card, smart-card, smartness
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
upstream uses 'smartcard' in his text.
please note this is my first package and I'm seeking a sponsor
Created attachment 468665 [details]
self performed review of spec / package
OK - I did my own self-test review (attached) -- please can a real reviewer point out where I'm incorrect?
This is looking pretty good and thorough for a first package.
Immediate things I notice, you are not compiling with correct compiler options,
look at the example CFLAGS settings on the Python guidelines page and
for a more general explanation.
Concerning smartcard vs smart-card just because upstream is using
the spelling of smartcard does not mean your .spec file has to... Though
in this case smartcard seems to be in pretty common usage to me.
More generally for obtaining sponsorship can continue to follow
and submit another package or two and provide some informal reviews
of other reviews:
report back here with links to some informal package review bugs you
When you review head this with "this is an informal review while I try
to obtain package sponsorship" or something.
Thanks. Updated srpm / spec are at
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6594808/Fedora/pyscard.spec and http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6594808/Fedora/pyscard-1.6.12-2.fc14.src.rpm
informal review by myself of another python package: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611054
Some further work:
* informal review of bug #668588 (Python26-imaging)
* Review Request for libfap (amateur radio APRS parser) in bug #669010
I was going to take a look, but unfortunately the -2 package fails to build for me:
swigging smartcard/scard/scard.i to smartcard/scard/scard_wrap.c
swig -python -outdir smartcard/scard -DPCSCLITE -o smartcard/scard/scard_wrap.c smartcard/scard/scard.i
unable to execute swig: Permission denied
error: command 'swig' failed with exit status 1
A missing dependency on swig, perhaps? You really should always do a koji scratch build or a local mock build to make sure you don't have any problems like this. Here's a scratch build showing the failure:
Please clear the Whiteboard field if providing a package which builds.
Ooops yes. Mock build failed. Bumped to -3 and added missing BuildRequires.
$ mock --rebuild ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/pyscard-1.6.12-3.fc14.src.rpm
State Changed: build
INFO: Done(/home/aelwell/rpmbuild/SRPMS/pyscard-1.6.12-3.fc14.src.rpm) Config(default) 1 minutes 21 seconds
INFO: Results and/or logs in: /var/lib/mock/fedora-14-x86_64/result
looks a bit better, thanks.
updated spec and srpm at:
I will work through a couple of your submissions, though it may take me a little while.
This is quite a clean package. It builds fine and rpmlint is silent.
You can remove BuildRoot, %clean and the first line of %install. You're obviously not targeting el4 or el5 with this spec (because of the filter stuff) so you shouldn't need those bits either.
I found a few files which do not appear to have the same license.
taken from the Python Cookbook. The provided URL indicates the "psf" license
which I believe we call "Python", but I'm not certain.
taken from http://mindview.net/Books/TIPython; I didn't see a license at first
smartcard/scard/pyscard-reader.h - I think this is BSD license, but you'll need to chase down the source of the code and verify. In any case, as it is compiled in with LGPL code it shouldn't change the final license but you must still verify that it is licensed and that license is compatible.
* source files match upstream. sha256sum:
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
? license field matches the actual license.
? license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
pyscard = 1.6.12-3.fc15
pyscard(x86-64) = 1.6.12-3.fc15
python(abi) = 2.7
* no bundled libraries that I can find.
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.
Spec updated to remove buildroot et al.
I have posted on upstream issue tracker (https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=196342&atid=957073 ) to ask if there has been any correspondence between upstream and the authors of those components.
Was there ever any progress on this?
Guess not. I'll go ahead and close this out.
It seems that licensing issues have been resolved.
Thus I re-open the new package request.
(In reply to Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos from comment #13)
> It seems that licensing issues have been resolved.
> Thus I re-open the new package request.
Please open a new bug and mark this as duplicate if you want to submit a review.
And please do not set review flag if you try to be a submitter.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1125953 ***