Bug 701954 - Review Request: python-ropemode - Helper for using rope refactoring library in IDEs
Summary: Review Request: python-ropemode - Helper for using rope refactoring library i...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Alec Leamas
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 701937
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2011-05-04 12:07 UTC by Stanislav Ochotnicky
Modified: 2012-06-26 21:25 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2012-05-26 07:48:11 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
leamas.alec: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Stanislav Ochotnicky 2011-05-04 12:07:50 UTC
Spec URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/ropemode.spec
SRPM URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/ropemode-0.1-0.1.rc2.fc14.src.rpm

Description:
Ropemode is a helper library for use of rope refactoring from within
IDEs, mainly used by ropemacs within Emacs.

Comment 1 Stanislav Ochotnicky 2011-05-13 08:59:33 UTC
Spec URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-ropemode.spec
SRPM URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-ropemode-0.1-0.2.rc2.fc14.src.rpm

* Fri May 13 2011 Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky> - 0.1-0.2.rc2
- Rename to python-ropemode
- Fix BR/R on rope to python-rope

Comment 2 Alec Leamas 2012-05-03 10:31:13 UTC
Package Review
==============

Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated

==== Generic ====
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
     least one supported primary architecture.
[-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
     See issue below, though.
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
     Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
     See issue below.
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
     See issue below.
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
     Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[!]: 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 is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[!]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
     rope dependency not listed.

[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
/home/mk/tmp/701954/ropemode-0.1-rc2.tar.gz :
  MD5SUM this package     : 005556053583a81f248828adc646924d
  MD5SUM upstream package : 005556053583a81f248828adc646924d

[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: 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.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
     /usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
     --requires).
[?]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
     upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.

Issues:
[!]: The handling of RHEL5 seems inconsistent. Either it's supported,
     and Buildroot, %clean, %defattr et. al. are needed. Or it's not 
     supported, and the python macro definitions in the top lines can 
     be removed.Or?
[!]  The test for %fedora > 12 is redundant and could be removed.
[!]  PKG-INFO seems to be only file stating the license. Include it in
     %doc.
[!]  BR: python2-devel is required and missing, assuming that this is
     a python2 package.



rpmlint python-ropemode-0.1-0.2.rc2.fc18.noarch.rpm

python-ropemode.noarch: W: spelling-error  (3)
- To me, you seem to spell better than rpmlint
python-ropemode.noarch: W: no-documentation
- Fixed by including PKG-INFO
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.


rpmlint python-ropemode-0.1-0.2.rc2.fc18.src.rpm

python-ropemode.src: W: spelling-error (3)
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.



<mock-chroot># rpm -q --provides python-ropemode
python-ropemode = 0.1-0.2.rc2.fc15
<mock-chroot># rpm -q --requires  python-ropemode | grep -v rpmlib
python
python(abi) = 2.7
python-rope
<mock-chroot>#


Generated by fedora-review 0.1.3
External plugins:

Comment 3 Stanislav Ochotnicky 2012-05-04 11:30:29 UTC
Thanks for doing the review

* Fri May  4 2012 Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky> - 0.1-0.3.rc2
- Add PKG-INFO to doc (contains license information)
- Remove macros for old Fedoras and EPEL5
- Change python-devel BR to python2-devel

Spec URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-ropemode.spec
SRPM URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-ropemode-0.1-0.3.rc2.fc16.src.rpm

Comment 4 Alec Leamas 2012-05-04 11:43:30 UTC
Hm...the spec link link looks like the old one, no change ;) But the srpm looks fine.

*** Approved

BTW, I noticed that the rpmbuild picks up the python dependency even without Requires: python. That is not to say the Requires: python is a problem.

Comment 5 Stanislav Ochotnicky 2012-05-07 08:20:46 UTC
I assume it was just your cache because I upload with a script :-) Thanks for the review.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: python-ropemode 
Short Description: Helper for using rope refactoring library in IDEs
Owners: sochotni
Branches: f16 f17
InitialCC:

Comment 6 Gwyn Ciesla 2012-05-07 12:30:50 UTC
Alec, please set the review flag to +.

Comment 7 Alec Leamas 2012-05-07 13:07:33 UTC
Done. When will I learn?

Comment 8 Gwyn Ciesla 2012-05-09 12:28:42 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Daily. :)

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2012-05-09 14:55:16 UTC
python-ropemode-0.1-0.3.rc2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-ropemode-0.1-0.3.rc2.fc17

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2012-05-09 14:56:46 UTC
python-ropemode-0.1-0.3.rc2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-ropemode-0.1-0.3.rc2.fc16

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2012-05-10 20:38:16 UTC
python-ropemode-0.1-0.3.rc2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2012-05-26 07:48:11 UTC
python-ropemode-0.1-0.3.rc2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2012-06-26 21:25:30 UTC
python-ropemode-0.1-0.3.rc2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.