Hide Forgot
Spec URL: http://kushal.fedorapeople.org/packages/pyelftools.spec SRPM URL: http://kushal.fedorapeople.org/packages/pyelftools-0.20-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Pure-Python library for parsing and analyzing ELF files Fedora Account System Username: kushal
Taking this review
two EPEL5-only spec features need to be removed (%defattr and cleaning the buildroot at the beginning of %install) -- and there are test cases in test/ that mostly pass, you'd probably want to at least run the first two and inform upstream about the third. 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. [x]: 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 Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [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 [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed [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. [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 [-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/michel/sources/fedora/projects/FedoraReview/src/829676/pyelftools-0.20.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : 5ac7b279a01c41e5b022a1a382eb9d92 MD5SUM upstream package : 5ac7b279a01c41e5b022a1a382eb9d92 [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. [-]: 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). [x]: 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. The three scripts in test/ should be run (from the main source directory). Note that run_readelf_tests currently fails but it looks like a simple matter of aligning the expected and actual result -- absolute vs relative paths -- might be worth asking upstream about though [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. Issues: [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 See: None [!]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. The three scripts in test/ should be run (from the main source directory). Note that run_readelf_tests currently fails but it looks like a simple matter of aligning the expected and actual result -- absolute vs relative paths -- might be worth asking upstream about though Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0git External plugins:
Ping - Kushal?
(In reply to comment #3) > Ping - Kushal? Michel, Kushal is ill (high fever) and Hospitalised. He is bit better and will answer upon your query as soon as he gets online.
I hope Kushal is getting better, in his absent I have updated the package: spec: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/pyelftools/pyelftools.spec srpm: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/pyelftools/pyelftools-0.21-1.fc18.src.rpm koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5353180 Note: run_readelf_tests.py fails in koji rawhide, however works on local system.
To me, looks like bundling the construct library: http://construct.readthedocs.org/en/latest/
Hello Michel! Is it OK to you, if'll take over the review for this? Cheers, Björn
Updated package: - Remove bundled construct lib spec: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/pyelftools/pyelftools.spec srpm: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/pyelftools/pyelftools-0.21-2.fc18.src.rpm
Seems to be fine, but (possibly) the issue during %check. Someone who is more in touch with ELF-structures should look a the inline-diff, I put into the review-result, and comment about. I think it's just an issue with alignment of output, but don't want to judge this myself alone... ##### Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Public domain". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bjoern.esser/fedora/review/829676-pyelftools/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: 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]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. ---> last test fail on diffing the results. seems to be caused by some misalignment. nothing to worry, I think... --- out1_CyTVCG.stdout 2013-06-09 08:30:08.121785966 +0200 +++ out2_DwKS_P.stdout 2013-06-09 08:30:08.121785966 +0200 @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ Abbrev Offset: 0x0 Pointer Size: 8 <0><b>: Abbrev Number: 1 (DW_TAG_compile_unit) - <c> DW_AT_producer : clang version 3.0 (trunk 136555) + < c> DW_AT_producer : clang version 3.0 (trunk 136555) <2d> DW_AT_language : 4 (C++) <2f> DW_AT_name : penalty.cpp <3b> DW_AT_entry_pc : 0x0 @@ -25,12 +25,14 @@ <2><75>: Abbrev Number: 5 (DW_TAG_subrange_type) <76> DW_AT_type : <0x69> <7a> DW_AT_upper_bound : 255 + <2><7c>: Abbrev Number: 0 <1><7d>: Abbrev Number: 4 (DW_TAG_array_type) <7e> DW_AT_sibling : <0x8d> <82> DW_AT_type : <0x61> <2><86>: Abbrev Number: 6 (DW_TAG_subrange_type) <87> DW_AT_type : <0x69> <8b> DW_AT_upper_bound : 2 + <2><8c>: Abbrev Number: 0 <1><8d>: Abbrev Number: 2 (DW_TAG_base_type) <8e> DW_AT_encoding : 5 (signed) <8f> DW_AT_name : int @@ -337,6 +339,8 @@ <3><3e5>: Abbrev Number: 11 (DW_TAG_formal_parameter) <3e6> DW_AT_type : <0xa6> <3ea> DW_AT_artificial : 1 + <3><3eb>: Abbrev Number: 0 + <2><3ec>: Abbrev Number: 0 <1><3ed>: Abbrev Number: 4 (DW_TAG_array_type) <3ee> DW_AT_sibling : <0x403> <3f2> DW_AT_type : <0xac> @@ -346,6 +350,7 @@ <2><3fc>: Abbrev Number: 6 (DW_TAG_subrange_type) <3fd> DW_AT_type : <0x69> <401> DW_AT_upper_bound : 10 + <2><402>: Abbrev Number: 0 <1><403>: Abbrev Number: 12 (DW_TAG_variable) <404> DW_AT_name : PenaltyTaker <411> DW_AT_type : <0x3ed> @@ -359,6 +364,7 @@ <2><42b>: Abbrev Number: 6 (DW_TAG_subrange_type) <42c> DW_AT_type : <0x69> <430> DW_AT_upper_bound : 1 + <2><431>: Abbrev Number: 0 <1><432>: Abbrev Number: 12 (DW_TAG_variable) <433> DW_AT_name : KickTakers <43e> DW_AT_type : <0x422> @@ -408,6 +414,9 @@ <506> DW_AT_decl_line : 63 <507> DW_AT_type : <0x8d> <50b> DW_AT_location : 2 byte block: 91 5c (DW_OP_fbreg: -36) + <4><50e>: Abbrev Number: 0 + <3><50f>: Abbrev Number: 0 + <2><510>: Abbrev Number: 0 <1><511>: Abbrev Number: 16 (DW_TAG_subprogram) <512> DW_AT_MIPS_linkage_name: _Z8GoalDiffv <51f> DW_AT_name : GoalDiff @@ -464,6 +473,8 @@ <5e5> DW_AT_decl_line : 114 <5e6> DW_AT_type : <0x8d> <5ea> DW_AT_location : 2 byte block: 91 6c (DW_OP_fbreg: -20) + <3><5ed>: Abbrev Number: 0 + <2><5ee>: Abbrev Number: 0 <1><5ef>: Abbrev Number: 17 (DW_TAG_subprogram) <5f0> DW_AT_MIPS_linkage_name: _Z11TakePenaltyii <602> DW_AT_name : TakePenalty @@ -498,4 +509,8 @@ <672> DW_AT_decl_line : 173 <673> DW_AT_type : <0x8d> <677> DW_AT_location : 2 byte block: 91 54 (DW_OP_fbreg: -44) + <4><67a>: Abbrev Number: 0 + <3><67b>: Abbrev Number: 0 + <2><67c>: Abbrev Number: 0 + <1><67d>: Abbrev Number: 0 [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: pyelftools-0.21-2.fc20.noarch.rpm pyelftools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pyreadelf 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint pyelftools pyelftools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pyreadelf 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' ---> You might want to add a manpage or ask upstream to do so... Requires -------- pyelftools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python python(abi) python-construct Provides -------- pyelftools: pyelftools Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/pyelftools/pyelftools-0.21.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a9a10d894c698ab3a2d909c3df1c3d88d0ab03811351c278b3f520204f33d834 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a9a10d894c698ab3a2d909c3df1c3d88d0ab03811351c278b3f520204f33d834 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 829676
paul@thinkpad:~$ rpmbuild -ba rpmbuild/SPECS/pyelftools.spec error: Failed build dependencies: python-construct is needed by pyelftools-0.21-2.fc18.noarch paul@thinkpad:~$ yum search python-construct Warning: No matches found for: python-construct
Please have a look at the "Depends On" tag on this very page :-)
(In reply to Paul Wouters from comment #10) > paul@thinkpad:~$ rpmbuild -ba rpmbuild/SPECS/pyelftools.spec > error: Failed build dependencies: > python-construct is needed by pyelftools-0.21-2.fc18.noarch > > paul@thinkpad:~$ yum search python-construct > Warning: No matches found for: python-construct see bz 972364 I approved it yesterday, just needs to be pushed by packger...
Still needinfo see my comment #9
Updated to latest git, is this better Björn? srpm: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/pyelftools/pyelftools-0.22-2.fc19.src.rpm
Unfortunately the second test is still failing, but after some research it's _REALLY_ caused by some misalignment in output of pyelftools (or more precisely it's testsuite using some grep-magic will fix) and readelf. So with this information I can say, safely: APPROVED!
No interest in bringing this into SCM? Kushal, Terje? If there won't be any response on this until 2013-08-12, I'll file an SCM request on this.
(In reply to Björn Esser from comment #16) > No interest in bringing this into SCM? Kushal, Terje? If there won't be > any response on this until 2013-08-12, I'll file an SCM request on this. As "promised" and and both requestees are not interessted bringing this into SCM after granted review, I'm filing the SCM-request myself now requesting co-maintainer perms for you as well. ##### New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: pyelftools Short Description: Pure-Python library for parsing and analyzing ELF files Owners: besser82 kushal terjeros Branches: el6 f18 f19 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
I'm a little confused about upstream. It seems to have changed to https://github.com/eliben/pyelftools/ but there is no version 0.22, only 0.21?
There had been a 0.22 somewhen around June, but upstream revoked it. I'll fix this on import creating a recent git snapshot tarball. Will be something like 0.22-0.1.git%{commitdate}.%{shortcommit} then. Objections?
That's fine. Thanks.
pyelftools-0.22-0.1.git20130619.a1d9681.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pyelftools-0.22-0.1.git20130619.a1d9681.fc18
pyelftools-0.22-0.1.git20130619.a1d9681.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pyelftools-0.22-0.1.git20130619.a1d9681.fc19
pyelftools-0.22-0.1.git20130619.a1d9681.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.
pyelftools-0.22-0.1.git20130619.a1d9681.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
pyelftools-0.22-0.1.git20130619.a1d9681.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.