Spec URL: http://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/python-odict/python-odict.spec SRPM URL: http://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/python-odict/python-odict-1.5.0-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: Dictionary in which the insertion order of items is preserved (using an internal double linked list). In this implementation replacing an existing item keeps it at its original position. Fedora Account System Username: sgallagh
Hi Stephen I guess you have plans for EPEL5 You should have this lines in spec: %if 0%{?rhel} && 0%{?rhel} <= 5 %{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib())")} %{!?python_sitearch: %global python_sitearch %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib(1))")} %endif http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros Regards
Hi again Also... Since here is a test existing, you should definitely use it! http://pypi.python.org/pypi/interlude/1.1.1 and %clean rm -rf %{buildroot}
For the readers: Tests broken upstream Sthepen forget what I said about test
Hi again In the process of renaming the package can use %global pkgname odict Name: python-odict Source0: http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/o/%{pkgname}/%{pkgname}-%{version}.tar.gz ........................ %prep %setup -q -n %{pkgname}-%{version} ........................ %files %doc LICENSE.rst README.rst %{python_sitelib}/%{pkgname}/ %{python_sitelib}/%{pkgname}-%{version}*.egg-info In http://pypi.python.org/pypi/odict/ I read Requires Python 2.4+ You could use BuildRequires: python2-devel Requires: python2 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires and in section %files. %files %defattr(-,root,root) #for EPEL %doc LICENSE.rst README.rst Regards
Thank you for the review! Yes, the upstream tests are broken (and also require network access) so I disabled them from the package build. I wasn't initially targeting EPEL, but I don't see any reason not to add your recommendations, so that's done. Spec: http://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/python-odict/python-odict-2.spec SRPM: http://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/python-odict/python-odict-1.5.0-2.fc18.src.rpm Koji build: http://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/python-odict/python-odict-1.5.0-2.fc18.src.rpm
Hi Sthepen - If tests is are available they must be used, but this tests being broken, are not available, so you can ignore such. (You can add a comment in the spec) - Add %clean section in the spec After that, I proceed to formal review Regards
Thanks for the additional review. Added. Spec: http://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/python-odict/python-odict-3.spec SRPM: http://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/python-odict/python-odict-1.5.0-3.fc18.src.rpm Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4559277
Hi Stephen the spec should have the same name of the package Incorrect: python-odict-3.spec Correct: python-odict something else the section %check generally should be collocated after %build
You have macro in comment too %{__python}, fix this please; Incorrect: # Tests are broken upstream and also require unpackaged python-interlude # Uncomment when fixed upstream # %{__python} setup.py test -m odict.tests Correct: # Tests are broken upstream and also require unpackaged python-interlude # Uncomment when fixed upstream # python setup.py test -m odict.tests Please remove the last dot (.) of the description Regards
The spec file in the SRPM *does* have the same name as the package. I just renamed it in my fedorapeople space so that you could diff it to the previous versions if you were so inclined. I'll attach a non-renamed version below. I've removed the python macro and reordered the sections (though the latter I think is a bit pedantic). Spec: http://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/python-odict/python-odict.spec SRPM: http://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/python-odict/python-odict-1.5.0-4.fc18.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4560445
I sincerely apologize : (, rpmlint complains about the dots in the summary and in the description. Did not mean to bother you Right now I'm doing the review
Again, excuse me, and thank you for your patience: Koji Build Rawhide (OK) http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4560545 Koji Build F18 (OK) http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4560565 Koji Build F17 (OK) http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4560740 Koji Build F16 (OK) http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4560837 Koji Build EL5 (with rpmbuild-md5) (OK) http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4560854 Koji Build EL6 (OK) http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4560841 Package Review ============== Key: [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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [-]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: 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 does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [-]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/makerpm/862853-python-odict/licensecheck.txt Python License [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: 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]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. Python: [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed [-]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?]: Package functions as described. [+]: Latest version is packaged. [+]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0 (odict-1.5.0.tar.gz) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/PythonNamingDependingOnImplementation [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [-]: 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. Test Upstream is broken [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-odict-1.5.0-4.fc17.noarch.rpm python-odict-1.5.0-4.fc17.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-odict 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python-odict-1.5.0-4.fc17.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) = 2.7 python2 Provides -------- python-odict-1.5.0-4.fc17.noarch.rpm: python-odict = 1.5.0-4.fc17 MD5-sum check ------------- http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/o/odict/odict-1.5.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5f102f7545364348b8a2b3312d32541f1e1c6911d762e9a6a568f82b17a5edd5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5f102f7545364348b8a2b3312d32541f1e1c6911d762e9a6a568f82b17a5edd5 ---------------- PACKAGE APPROVED ----------------
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-odict Short Description: Ordered dictionary Owners: sgallagh Branches: f18 f17 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: python-odict New Branches: f16 el6 el5 Owners: sgallagh tato650 InitialCC: tato650 Eduardo has volunteered to comaintain this package in additional branches.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: python-odict New Branches: f16 el6 el5 Owners: sgallagh echevemaster InitialCC: echevemaster Eduardo has volunteered to comaintain this package in additional branches. Pardon for the earlier incorrect name. Bad zodbot lookup. Two Eduardo Echeverrias
python-odict-1.5.0-4.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-odict-1.5.0-4.fc16
python-odict-1.5.0-4.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-odict-1.5.0-4.el6
python-odict-1.5.0-4.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-odict-1.5.0-4.el5
python-odict-1.5.0-4.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.
python-odict-1.5.0-4.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.
python-odict-1.5.0-4.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.