Hide Forgot
Spec URL: http://flip-edesign.com/source/junk/python26-jsonschema.spec SRPM URL: http://flip-edesign.com/source/junk/python26-jsonschema-0.2a-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: JSON Schema is a specification for a JSON-based format for defining the structure of JSON data. JSON Schema provides a contract for what JSON data is required for a given application and how it can be modified, much like what XML Schema provides for XML. JSON Schema is intended to provide validation, documentation, and interaction control of JSON data === $ rpmlint SRPMS/python26-jsonschema-0.2a-1.fc14.src.rpm sh: /usr/bin/python2.6: No such file or directory sh: /usr/bin/python2.6: No such file or directory sh: /usr/bin/python2.6: No such file or directory sh: /usr/bin/python2.6: No such file or directory sh: /usr/bin/python2.6: No such file or directory sh: /usr/bin/python2.6: No such file or directory sh: /usr/bin/python2.6: No such file or directory python26-jsonschema.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://jsonschema.googlecode.com/files/jsonschema-0.2a.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Initial Notes: --- This package does not currently exist in Fedora. Might be worth considering packaging as 'python-jsonschema' for Fedora branches, with an optional 'python26-jsonschema' that conditionally builds on el5. This isn't required, just a thought. --- rpmlint should be run on the spec, and the built packages... not the srpm. --- There is a typo in %prep: "# This resoles rpmlint warnings:" --- Can you explain (and comment in the spec) why the following: %attr(755,root,root) %{python_sitearch}/jsonschema/__init__.py %attr(755,root,root) %{python_sitearch}/jsonschema/validator.py As this is redundant with: %{python_sitearch}/jsonschema If you must list those two files individually, you need to also include the .pyc and .pyo files. I.e.: %attr(755,root,root) %{python_sitearch}/jsonschema/__init__.py[co] or simply: %attr(755,root,root) %{python_sitearch}/jsonschema/__init__.py* --- It is good practice to end directory listing with a '/' for clarity. I.e. %{python_sitearch}/jsonschema/ %{python_sitearch}/jsonschema-%{version}-py%{pyver}.egg-info/ --- The '%__sed' lines in %prep should be '%{__sed}' for consistency with all the other macros in the spec. --- REVIEW: [ fail ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package [ fail ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines * Improper use of python macros. This is a noarch package, therefore python_sitelib should be used (not python_sitearch). This is causing the build to fail on epel-5-x86_64. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros [ fail ] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. There is no need to BuildRequire: coreutils See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Exceptions_2 [ fail ] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/jsonschema/__init__.py warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/jsonschema/validator.py [ fail ] 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. The aforementioned files above (__init__.py, validator.py) should not be executable 0755... should be 0644. [ ? ] SHOULD query upstream to include it. [ fail ] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. MUST ITEMS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ pass ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [ pass ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [...] [ pass ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines [ pass ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license [ pass ] 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 [ pass ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [ pass ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [ pass ] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. 3f127e685782e7bab4a385f41d8a0729 jsonschema-0.2a.tar.gz 3f127e685782e7bab4a385f41d8a0729 jsonschema-0.2a.tar.gz.vanilla [ pass ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture [ pass ] 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. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line [ pass ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden [ pass ] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [ pass ] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [ pass ] 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. [ pass ] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [ pass ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [ pass ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [ pass ] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [ pass ] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [ pass ] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [ pass ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [ pass ] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [ pass ] 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. [ pass ] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [ pass ] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [ pass ] 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. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. [ pass ] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [ pass ] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [ pass ] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. SHOULD ITEMS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ pass ] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [ pass ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [ pass ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. [ pass ] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [ pass ] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [ pass ] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [ pass ] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [ pass ] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.[34]
Hello BJ, Thanks for reviewing this package. Spec URL: http://flip-edesign.com/source/junk/python26-jsonschema.spec SRPM URL: http://flip-edesign.com/source/junk/python26-jsonschema-0.2a-2.el5.src.rpm Below is the rpmlint for SPEC and RPM: --- $ rpmlint SPECS/python26-jsonschema.spec sh: /usr/bin/python2.6: No such file or directorysh: /usr/bin/python2.6: No such file or directory sh: /usr/bin/python2.6: No such file or directory sh: /usr/bin/python2.6: No such file or directory sh: /usr/bin/python2.6: No such file or directory sh: /usr/bin/python2.6: No such file or directory sh: /usr/bin/python2.6: No such file or directory SPECS/python26-jsonschema.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: http://jsonschema.googlecode.com/files/jsonschema-0.2a.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/epel-5-i386-jeffrey.ness/result/python26-jsonschema-0.2a-2.el5.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. --- This package built successfully in mock using epel-5-i386 --- I have corrected each check you mentioned above, however I had to leave the explicit attr on the .py files to resolves rpmlint errors: $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/epel-5-i386-jeffrey.ness/result/python26-jsonschema-0.2a-2.el5.noarch.rpm python26-jsonschema.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/jsonschema/__init__.py 0644L /usr/bin/env python26-jsonschema.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/jsonschema/validator.py 0644L /usr/bin/env 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings. ---
It appears that rpmlint is throwing those warnings because those two files have a shebang line of #!/usr/bin/env (making rpmlint think they are a script and need 755). Python library files should not have a sheband line... it is required to patch/sed/etc the files to remove the shebang, and also recommended to notify upstream to influence them to remove the shebang from all library files (not scripts... just the modules).
Hey BJ, Thanks for clearing a few things up as far as Python modules and executables, I have followed the Fedora Documentation to remove the shebang: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Remove_shebang_from_Python_libraries Spec URL: http://flip-edesign.com/source/junk/python26-jsonschema.spec SRPM URL: http://flip-edesign.com/source/junk/python26-jsonschema-0.2a-3.el5.src.rpm -- $ rpmlint SPECS/python26-jsonschema.spec sh: /usr/bin/python2.6: No such file or directory sh: /usr/bin/python2.6: No such file or directory sh: /usr/bin/python2.6: No such file or directory sh: /usr/bin/python2.6: No such file or directory sh: /usr/bin/python2.6: No such file or directory sh: /usr/bin/python2.6: No such file or directory SPECS/python26-jsonschema.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: http://jsonschema.googlecode.com/files/jsonschema-0.2a.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/epel-5-i386-jeffrey.ness/result/python26-jsonschema-0.2a-3.el5.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- Upstream has been notified: http://code.google.com/p/jsonschema/issues/detail?id=22
Because this module does not exist in Fedora/EPEL under the stock python stack, I'd like to request that you convert this package to be 'python-jsonschema'. Then add python26-jsonschema as a subpackage utilizing __multiple_python_os_install_post macro. See: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678690
It seems the python jsonschemaa project is dead and has not been updated since 2008. http://code.google.com/p/jsonschema/ I think it would be best to not push this dead package in to the active EPEL community, I will be closing this bug. Jeffrey-