Spec URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/tryton/trytond-account-stock-anglo-saxon.spec SRPM URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/tryton/trytond-account-stock-anglo-saxon-2.0.0-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: account-stock-continental module for Tryton
Updated description: account-stock-anglo-saxon module for Tryton
MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1] OK, although it might be a good idea not to package the tests if possible. $ rpmlint trytond-account-stock-anglo-saxon* trytond-account-stock-anglo-saxon.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C account-stock-anglo-saxon module for Tryton trytond-account-stock-anglo-saxon.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/trytond/modules/account_stock_anglo_saxon/tests/test_account_stock_anglo_saxon.py 0644L /usr/bin/env trytond-account-stock-anglo-saxon.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C account-stock-anglo-saxon module for Tryton MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . OK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] . OK MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . OK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . OK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [3] OK, but please ask upstream to update the LICENSE file. It has the text for GPLv2 right now. 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.[4] OK MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5] OK MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6] OK 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. OK MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [7] OK http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3123077 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. [8] N/A 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. OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9] N/A 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. [10] N/A MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11] OK 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. [12] N/A 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. [13] OK MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)[14] OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. [15] OK MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16] OK MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17] OK 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). [18] OK. By the way the doc directory is not packaged 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. [18] OK MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19] N/A MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20] N/A 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. [19] N/A MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} [21] N/A MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.[20] N/A 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. [22] N/A 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. [23] OK MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [24] OK 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. [25] N/A SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [26] N/A SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [27] OK http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3123077 SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [28] OK SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. TODO I don't have Trytond nor Fedora 16. Please ask someone else to do the testing especially if you're in a hurry. SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [29] N/A SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [21] N/A 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. [30] N/A 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. [31] N/A SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.[32] NOT. Please include the doc subdirectory.
Updated Spec URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/tryton/trytond-account-stock-anglo-saxon.spec Updated SRPM URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/tryton/trytond-account-stock-anglo-saxon-2.0.0-2.fc16.src.rpm ChangeLog: - include doc directory as %doc - the LICENSE text will updated by upstream in next release, binding is what's written in the COPYRIGHT file (IANAL)
The LICENSE file does say that it's GPLv2 and not v3 and COPYRIGHT files mentions that the license text is published FSF, so I don't see a showstopper in this. Regarding doc I must admit that the 2 %doc lines look odd, but nevertheless I consider the spec fine. The koji scratch build is at http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3124945 . After I or someone else tests the package, I'll approve it.
Cristian - are you still interested in doing the review? (in which case I'll just test the build). FWIW the review guidelines do not actually require the reviewer to do functional testing, just recommends it. Dan, could you update this for Tryton 2.2 (F17) and 2.4 (Rawhide)? I'll do the testing (and Cristian or myself should re-review since it's been a year and two major releases) once there is an updated SRPM. Thanks!
Yes, I could do another review, but I have only an old Fedora version available (16) again, so I don't think I'll be able to do the testing.
Updated Spec URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/tryton/modules/trytond-account-stock-anglo-saxon.spec Updated SRPM URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/tryton/modules/trytond-account-stock-anglo-saxon-2.4.2-2.fc18.src.rpm Changelog: - updated to 2.4
It seems I was and I'm still going to be offline for a longer period than I was expecting, so I'm removing myself from the "assigned to" field in case someone else wants to do this review.
The source tarball contains a bundled egg-info. Please remove it before building your package (in the %prep section): rm -rf %{modname}.egg-info See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Eggs#Upstream_Eggs for more information. I take this for a full review.
Updated Spec URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/tryton/modules/trytond-account-stock-anglo-saxon.spec Updated SRPM URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/tryton/modules/trytond-account-stock-anglo-saxon-2.4.2-3.fc18.src.rpm Changelog: - remove upstream egginfo so it gets rebuilt
Scratch build for f18: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4568034 Well, it builds successfully, but there are still some issues: $ rpmlint -i -v *trytond-account-stock-anglo-saxon.noarch: I: checking trytond-account-stock-anglo-saxon.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C account-stock-anglo-saxon module for Tryton Summary doesn't begin with a capital letter. trytond-account-stock-anglo-saxon.noarch: I: checking-url http://www.tryton.org (timeout 10 seconds) trytond-account-stock-anglo-saxon.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/trytond/modules/account_stock_anglo_saxon/tests/test_account_stock_anglo_saxon.py 0644L /usr/bin/env This text file contains a shebang or is located in a path dedicated for executables, but lacks the executable bits and cannot thus be executed. If the file is meant to be an executable script, add the executable bits, otherwise remove the shebang or move the file elsewhere. trytond-account-stock-anglo-saxon.noarch: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/trytond-account-stock-anglo-saxon-2.4.2/INSTALL A file whose name suggests that it contains installation instructions is included in the package. Such instructions are often not relevant for already installed packages; if this is the case for this file and it does not contain any information that is of interest after the package has been built and installed, do not include the file in the binary package. trytond-account-stock-anglo-saxon.src: I: checking trytond-account-stock-anglo-saxon.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C account-stock-anglo-saxon module for Tryton Summary doesn't begin with a capital letter. trytond-account-stock-anglo-saxon.src: I: checking-url http://www.tryton.org (timeout 10 seconds) trytond-account-stock-anglo-saxon.src: I: checking-url http://downloads.tryton.org/2.4/trytond_account_stock_anglo_saxon-2.4.2.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) trytond-account-stock-anglo-saxon.spec: I: checking-url http://downloads.tryton.org/2.4/trytond_account_stock_anglo_saxon-2.4.2.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. The missing capital letter in the summary can be ignored in this case. The INSTALL file in %doc is superfluous here, nobody benefits of it. Once the package is installed, there's no need to provide instructions which refers to an installation from the source tarball. All files in %{python_sitelib} don't need a shebang. Remove it.
(In reply to comment #11) > The missing capital letter in the summary can be ignored in this case. > > The INSTALL file in %doc is superfluous here, nobody benefits of it. Once > the package is installed, there's no need to provide instructions which > refers to an installation from the source tarball. The INSTALL file contains a useful information - the list of modules that are required for this modules to work, it's easier for the user to read it here than in __tryton__.py source file. So I'd prefer to include it. > All files in %{python_sitelib} don't need a shebang. Remove it. There is only one file with the python shebang and it's the "executable" for the module tests. I was asked by upstream to include the tests directory even when they are not so important in "production" packages. I wouldn't object to the removal of the shebang in any other file, but would prefer to keep it in the test driver. It would be a change just to make rpmlint silent, but no real sense in my opinion.
(In reply to comment #12) > The INSTALL file contains a useful information - the list of modules that > are required for this modules to work, it's easier for the user to read it > here than in __tryton__.py source file. So I'd prefer to include it. > Your spec says: Requires: tryton(kernel) = %{tryton_major} Requires: trytond-account-invoice Requires: trytond-account-stock-continental Requires: trytond-purchase Requires: trytond-sale The INSTALL file says: * Python 2.6 or later (http://www.python.org/) * trytond (http://www.tryton.org/) * trytond_account (http://www.tryton.org/) * trytond_account_invoice (http://www.tryton.org/) * trytond_account_product (http://www.tryton.org/) * trytond_stock_continental (http://www.tryton.org/) What's the advantage of providing such info? Once the package has been installed, all the dependencies are present anyway. Apart from the weblinks, this file is useless for end users, and even the links are not really needed. > There is only one file with the python shebang and it's the "executable" for > the module tests. I was asked by upstream to include the tests directory > even when they are not so important in "production" packages. I wouldn't > object to the removal of the shebang in any other file, but would prefer to > keep it in the test driver. It would be a change just to make rpmlint > silent, but no real sense in my opinion. OK. Leave it as it is. It's unusual to have a shebang there, but it doesn't affect the package itself. It's just a warning from rpmlint, no error.
Any news...?
Updated Spec URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/tryton/modules/trytond-account-stock-anglo-saxon.spec Updated SRPM URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/tryton/modules/trytond-account-stock-anglo-saxon-2.4.2-4.fc18.src.rpm Changelog: - INSTALL not used as %doc
Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4698417 $ rpmlint -i -v * trytond-account-stock-anglo-saxon.src: I: checking trytond-account-stock-anglo-saxon.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C account-stock-anglo-saxon module for Tryton Summary doesn't begin with a capital letter. trytond-account-stock-anglo-saxon.src: I: checking-url http://www.tryton.org (timeout 10 seconds) trytond-account-stock-anglo-saxon.src: I: checking-url http://downloads.tryton.org/2.4/trytond_account_stock_anglo_saxon-2.4.2.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) trytond-account-stock-anglo-saxon.noarch: I: checking trytond-account-stock-anglo-saxon.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C account-stock-anglo-saxon module for Tryton Summary doesn't begin with a capital letter. trytond-account-stock-anglo-saxon.noarch: I: checking-url http://www.tryton.org (timeout 10 seconds) trytond-account-stock-anglo-saxon.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/trytond/modules/account_stock_anglo_saxon/tests/test_account_stock_anglo_saxon.py 0644L /usr/bin/env This text file contains a shebang or is located in a path dedicated for executables, but lacks the executable bits and cannot thus be executed. If the file is meant to be an executable script, add the executable bits, otherwise remove the shebang or move the file elsewhere. trytond-account-stock-anglo-saxon.spec: I: checking-url http://downloads.tryton.org/2.4/trytond_account_stock_anglo_saxon-2.4.2.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. No issues worth to discuss, see previous comments. --------------------------------- key: [+] OK [.] OK, not applicable [X] needs work --------------------------------- [+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review. [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. GPLv3+ [+] 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. [+] 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. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. $ sha256sum * 58eeab6041281155430e9c05d0fe10ff7fc1199204b7a68332b39388c552c167 trytond_account_stock_anglo_saxon-2.4.2.tar.gz 58eeab6041281155430e9c05d0fe10ff7fc1199204b7a68332b39388c552c167 trytond_account_stock_anglo_saxon-2.4.2.tar.gz.orig [+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [.] 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. [+] 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. [.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. [.] 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. [+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [.] 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. [+] 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 Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations) [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [.] 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). [+] 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. [.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [.] MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package. [.] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} [.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [.] 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. [+] 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. [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [.] 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. [.] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See Koji build above (which uses Mock anyway). [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [.] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [.] 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. [.] 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. [.] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. ---------------- PACKAGE APPROVED ----------------
Thanks for review. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: trytond-account-stock-anglo-saxon Short Description: account-stock-anglo-saxon module for Tryton Owners: sharkcz Branches: F-16 F-17 F-18 EL-6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
imported and built