Bug 717680 - Review Request: python-cloudservers - Client library for Rackspace's Cloud Servers API
Summary: Review Request: python-cloudservers - Client library for Rackspace's Cloud Se...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ryan Rix
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
: 547622 (view as bug list)
Depends On: 717666
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2011-06-29 14:50 UTC by Chris Lalancette
Modified: 2011-10-10 10:24 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2011-07-07 13:02:30 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
ry: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Chris Lalancette 2011-06-29 14:50:29 UTC
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/clalance/python-cloudservers/python-cloudservers.spec

SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/clalance/python-cloudservers/python-cloudservers-1.2-2.fc14.src.rpm

Description: 
This is a client for Rackspace's Cloud Servers API. There's a Python API (the
"cloudservers" module), and a command-line script ("cloudservers"). Each
implements 100% of the Rackspace API.

[clalance@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint python-cloudservers.spec
python-cloudservers.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: python-cloudservers-1.2.tar.gz
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
[clalance@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint /home/clalance/rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-cloudservers-1.2-2.fc14.src.rpm
python-cloudservers.src: W: invalid-url Source0: python-cloudservers-1.2.tar.gz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Comment 1 Ryan Rix 2011-07-05 20:59:10 UTC
As I already have 717666 installed on my machine, I'll take this one for a test ride.

Comment 2 Ryan Rix 2011-07-05 22:00:11 UTC
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming 
         Guidelines
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [...]
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
[-] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license
         and meet the Licensing Guidelines
* Uses INSTALLED_FILES -- See first <!> in
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Byte_compiling . Please use
file globbing.

[?] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the 
         actual license
I can't find the license anywhere in the source tarball. Would you be so kind as to point out where the files are licensed as BSD?

[?] 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 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.
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary 
         rpms on at least one primary architecture
[n/a] 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.
[n/a] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by 
         using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly 
         forbidden
[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.
[n/a] 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.
* See above usage of INSTALLED_FILES

[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files 
         listing.
[+] 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.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
         %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[n/a] 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).
[n/a] 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.
* note: Could docs/ or the generated readme be installed as %doc?

[n/a] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[n/a] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[n/a] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: 
         pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability).
[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.
[n/a] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the 
         base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
         %{version}-%{release}
[n/a] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must 
         be removed in the spec if they are built.
[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.
[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.
[-] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
         %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
* Seems straightforward
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

A few questions and comments, see above.

Comment 3 Chris Lalancette 2011-07-06 14:24:18 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> [+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package
> [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming 
>          Guidelines
> [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [...]
> [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
> [-] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license
>          and meet the Licensing Guidelines
> * Uses INSTALLED_FILES -- See first <!> in
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Byte_compiling . Please use
> file globbing.

Ah, I didn't know about that recommendation.  Fixed now.

> 
> [?] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the 
>          actual license
> I can't find the license anywhere in the source tarball. Would you be so kind
> as to point out where the files are licensed as BSD?

Unfortunately this project doesn't ship a separate LICENSE file.  The BSD license is pointed out both in the setup.py and the PKG-INFO files.

> 
> [?] 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

As above, there is no separate license file.

> [+] 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 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.
> [+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary 
>          rpms on at least one primary architecture
> [n/a] 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.
> [n/a] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by 
>          using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly 
>          forbidden
> [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.
> [n/a] 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.
> * See above usage of INSTALLED_FILES

Right, I think this should be fixed now.

> 
> [+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files 
>          listing.
> [+] 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.
> [+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
>          %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
> [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
> [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
> [n/a] 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).
> [n/a] 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.
> * note: Could docs/ or the generated readme be installed as %doc?

docs/ by itself isn't very useful.  However, you can use python-sphinx to build HTML documentation.  I've updated the spec file to now build a separate -doc package with that stuff included.

> 
> [n/a] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
> [n/a] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
> [n/a] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: 
>          pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability).
> [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.
> [n/a] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the 
>          base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
>          %{version}-%{release}
> [n/a] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must 
>          be removed in the spec if they are built.
> [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.
> [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.
> [-] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
>          %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
> * Seems straightforward

This is in there now.

> [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
> 
> A few questions and comments, see above.

I've uploaded the new spec to http://people.redhat.com/clalance/python-cloudservers/python-cloudservers.spec, and the new SRPM to http://people.redhat.com/clalance/python-cloudservers/python-cloudservers-1.2-3.fc14.src.rpm.  Can you take a look?

Thanks,
Chris Lalancette

Comment 4 Ryan Rix 2011-07-06 17:01:09 UTC
Looks great, Chris. 

APPROVED.

Comment 5 Chris Lalancette 2011-07-06 17:50:47 UTC
Thanks again!


New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: python-cloudservers
Short Description: Client library for Rackspace's Cloud Servers API
Owners: clalance imcleod
Branches:
InitialCC:

Comment 6 Gwyn Ciesla 2011-07-07 10:12:40 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

imcleod not added, not in Packagers group.

Comment 7 Chris Lalancette 2011-09-21 18:18:07 UTC
Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: python-cloudservers
New Branches: f15
Owners: clalance
InitialCC:

Comment 8 Gwyn Ciesla 2011-09-24 15:26:29 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 9 Miroslav Suchý 2011-10-10 10:24:12 UTC
*** Bug 547622 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***


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