Spec URL: http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python26-cheetah/python26-cheetah.spec SRPM URL: http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python26-cheetah/python26-cheetah-2.4.4-2.el5.centos.src.rpm Description: Template engine and code-generator Fedora Account System Username: stevetraylen This is an EPEL 5 package only for python26. Steve.
Hi. Here's a first go at it. Generic things: - what about replacing (not to have it hardcoded): %global python_sitearch %{_libdir}/python2.6/site-packages with something like: %global pybasever 2.6 %global __python /usr/bin/python%{pybasever} %{!?python_sitearch: %global python_sitearch %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print get_python_lib(1)")} +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing MUST Items: [-] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. python26-cheetah.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.0.1-2 ['2.4.4-2.el5.centos', '2.4.4-2.centos'] - could you fix this? python26-cheetah.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/Cheetah/_namemapper.so - please add the executable flag to this one python26-cheetah-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package - this is fine, as you can't make it noarch 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Follows the rest of the python26-* packages. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. MIT. [-] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. The LICENSE file does not mention any specific license, the PKG-INFO file then has: ... License: UNKNOWN ... Classifier: License :: OSI Approved :: MIT License ... so it looks like MIT, but is it sure and could it be more explicit? [-] 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. The source contains a LICENSE file and you include it, but the text does not match the MIT license text i could find. [+] 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. # md5sum Cheetah-2.4.4.tar.gz* 853917116e731afbc8c8a43c37e6ddba Cheetah-2.4.4.tar.gz 853917116e731afbc8c8a43c37e6ddba Cheetah-2.4.4.tar.gz.srcrpm [+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Targeted only at EPEL5, works. [+] 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. [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires [+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Not used. [+] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. Package has a _namemapper.so, but not in a default path. [+] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review [+] 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 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. Missing executable flag in _namemapper.so. [+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage. Not the case. [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. No header files. [+] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. No static libraries. [+] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). No pkgconfig. [+] 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. Only _namemapper.so is provided. [+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} No -devel. [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. [+] 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. No GUI. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. SHOULD Items: [+] 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. English is ok, add others if you want. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4238642 [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. At least it installs. [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [+] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. Additional python checks: [+] MUST: Python eggs must be built from source. They cannot simply drop an egg from upstream into the proper directory. (See prebuilt binaries Guidelines for details) The sources do provide an egginfo directory, but it's not the one being packaged. [+] MUST: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [+] MUST: When building a compat package, it must install using easy_install -m so it won't conflict with the main package. Not a multi-version package. [+] MUST: When building multiple versions (for a compat package) one of the packages must contain a default version that is usable via "import MODULE" with no prior setup. Not a multi-version package. [+] SHOULD: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. egginfo available.
(In reply to comment #1) > Generic things: > > - what about replacing (not to have it hardcoded): > %global python_sitearch %{_libdir}/python2.6/site-packages > > with something like: > > %global pybasever 2.6 > %global __python /usr/bin/python%{pybasever} > > %{!?python_sitearch: %global python_sitearch %(%{__python} -c "from > distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print get_python_lib(1)")} > > I will do if you like but I always think given the the package is completely hardcoded to EPEL5 anyway it makes little difference to make the variables also hardcoded. If you do make them dynamic utilizing python2.6 within these %globals then you get non fatal koji errors when the .src.rpm is created which is ugly. Essentially other people have made me go from dynamic to static in exactly the same case. > +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing > > MUST Items: > [-] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. > > python26-cheetah.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.0.1-2 > ['2.4.4-2.el5.centos', '2.4.4-2.centos'] Agreed, fixed in next package. > python26-cheetah.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object > /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/Cheetah/_namemapper.so > - please add the executable flag to this one Agreed, I even changed it away from that for some reason. Fixed. > [-] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual > license. > > The LICENSE file does not mention any specific license, the PKG-INFO file > then has: > ... > License: UNKNOWN > ... > Classifier: License :: OSI Approved :: MIT License > ... > > so it looks like MIT, but is it sure and could it be more explicit? The LICENSE file is in essence a combination of MIT license as documented here https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT I feel this qualifies as MIT. > [-] 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. > > The source contains a LICENSE file and you include it, but the text does not > match the MIT license text i could find. > Same point as above. > [-] 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. > > Missing executable flag in _namemapper.so. > Corrected Fresh packages: http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python26-cheetah/python26-cheetah.spec http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python26-cheetah/python26-cheetah-2.4.4-2.el5.src.rpm
http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python26-cheetah/python26-cheetah-2.4.4-3.el5.src.rpm of course.
All comments have been taken into account. APPROVED!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python26-cheetah Short Description: Template engine and code-generator Owners: stevetraylen Branches: el5 InitialCC: Thanks for the review, This is an EPEL5 only package. Steve.
Git done (by process-git-requests).
python26-cheetah-2.4.4-3.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python26-cheetah-2.4.4-3.el5
python26-cheetah-2.4.4-3.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository.
python26-cheetah-2.4.4-3.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.