*** Bug 458975 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Taking for review.

Instead of 'Pivy', I believe this package should be named 'python-pivy', as per python naming guidelines:

"Packages of python modules (thus they rely on python as a parent) use a slightly different naming scheme. They should take into account the upstream name of the python module. This makes a package name format of python-$NAME. When in doubt, use the name of the module that you type to import it in a script."

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28python_modules.29

Ok, fixed. Is there anything else I need to fix before posting new links?

Thanks,
Richard

No, please post new links. I haven't looked in it in detail yet, but the packaging seems nice and clean at least.

SPEC: http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/Pivy/python-pivy.spec
SRPM: http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/Pivy/python-pivy-0.5.0-2.hg609.fc16.src.rpm

Fedora review python-pivy-0.5.0-2.hg609.fc16.src.rpm 2012-04-18

+ OK
! needs attention

rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint python-pivy \
          python-pivy-debuginfo \
          python-pivy-0.5.0-2.hg609.fc16.src.rpm
python-pivy.src:52: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib
python-pivy.src: W: invalid-url Source0: Pivy-0.5.0-hg609.tar.gz
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.

+ Rpmlint warnings/errors are harmless and can be ignored
+ The package is named according to Fedora packaging guidelines
+ The spec file name matches the base package name.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
  Licensing Guidelines.

! The license field in the spec file doesn't match the actual license

The spec file currently states that it's BSD licensed. However, the license
headers in the source code and the LICENSE file appear to specify the ISC
license, which, according to the list of allowed licenses [1], should use
"License: ISC" tag in the spec file.

+ The package contains the license file (LICENSE)
+ Spec file is written in American English
+ Spec file is legible
+ Upstream hg checkout sources match sources in the srpm. 
+ The package builds in koji
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+ BuildRequires look sane
n/a The spec file handles locales properly
n/a ldconfig in %post and %postun
+ Package does not bundle copies of system libraries
n/a Package isn't relocatable
+ Package owns all the directories it creates
+ No duplicate files in %files
+ Permissions are properly set
+ Consistent use of macros
+ The package must contain code or permissible content
n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ Files marked %doc should not affect package
n/a Header files should be in -devel
n/a Static libraries should be in -static
n/a Library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package
n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base
+ Packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a Proper .desktop file handling
+ Doesn't own files or directories already owned by other packages
+ Filenames are valid UTF-8


Issues
------
 1) The spec 'BSD' vs 'ISC' licensing issue outlined above
 2) Maybe it'd be better to use pre-release version numbering [2], in case
    upstream decides to release 0.5.0 final some day?
    0.5.0-0.2.hg609 instead of
    0.5.0-2.hg609

[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses
[2] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages

Oone more suggestion I forgot -- might be better to compress the sources with xz instead of gz to save some space.

(In reply to comment #6)
> Issues
> ------
>  1) The spec 'BSD' vs 'ISC' licensing issue outlined above

Fixed.


>  2) Maybe it'd be better to use pre-release version numbering [2], in case
>     upstream decides to release 0.5.0 final some day?
>     0.5.0-0.2.hg609 instead of
>     0.5.0-2.hg609

I thought this was a post-release checkout but I'll check.


(In reply to comment #7)
> Oone more suggestion I forgot -- might be better to compress the sources with
> xz instead of gz to save some space.

I would but mecurial doesn't seem to support it in their "hg archive" command.

New links to follow.

Ok, both setup.py and NEWS says it's 0.5.0 so I assume it is a post-release snapshot.

SPEC: http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/Pivy/python-pivy.spec
SRPM:
http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/Pivy/python-pivy-0.5.0-3.hg609.fc16.src.rpm

Looks good. Don't forget to update the bugzilla ticket's summary for Pivy -> python-pivy rename before filing the SCM request.

APPROVED

Thanks for the review!

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: python-pivy
Short Description: Python binding for Coin
Owners: hobbes1069
Branches: f16 f17
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

python-pivy-0.5.0-3.hg609.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-pivy-0.5.0-3.hg609.fc16

python-pivy-0.5.0-3.hg609.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-pivy-0.5.0-3.hg609.fc17

python-pivy-0.5.0-3.hg609.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository.

python-pivy-0.5.0-3.hg609.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.

python-pivy-0.5.0-3.hg609.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: python-pivy
New Branches: el6
Owners: zultron hobbes1069
InitialCC: 

The owner of this package (hobbes1069) and I (zultron) are building this package for EPEL6.

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: python-pivy
New Branches: epel7
Owners: zultron hobbes1069
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).