Bug 880875 - Review Request: python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure - fedmsg metadata providers for Fedora Infrastructure's deployment
Summary: Review Request: python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure - fedmsg metadata pr...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Eduardo Echeverria
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2012-11-28 01:20 UTC by Ralph Bean
Modified: 2013-01-06 05:53 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-01-06 05:53:04 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
echevemaster: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Ralph Bean 2012-11-28 01:20:52 UTC
Spec URL: http://ralph.fedorapeople.org//python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure.spec
SRPM URL: http://ralph.fedorapeople.org//python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure-0.0.3-1.fc18.src.rpm

Description:
fedmsg metadata providers for Fedora Infrastructure's deployment

fedmsg <http://fedmsg.com> is a set of tools for knitting together
services and webapps into a realtime messaging net.  This package contains
metadata provider plugins for the primary deployment of that system:
Fedora Infrastructure <http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure>.

If you were to deploy fedmsg at another site, you would like want to write
your own module like this one that could provide textual representations of
your messages.

Comment 1 Ralph Bean 2012-11-28 01:20:58 UTC
This package built on koji:  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4735925

Comment 2 Eduardo Echeverria 2012-11-30 02:53:03 UTC
Hi Ralph, 

I'll take the review

Comments about rpmlint:
- spelling errors can be ignored
- Although the word 'fedmsg' can not capitalize, try to provide a summary that does not generate this warning. I know this is not a 'MUST', but it does not hurt to remove a warning in the rpmlint :)

BTW I notice that there a call to non-existing files in the template MANIFEST.in
in the line
recursive-include fedmsg.d *.py


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.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[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.
[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:
     "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/makerpm/880875-python-
     fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure/licensecheck.txt
[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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
     Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
     Note: Cannot find sources under BUILD (using prebuilt sources?)
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[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]: 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.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: 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 (fedmsg_meta_fedora_infrastructure-0.0.3.tar.gz)
[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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure-0.0.3-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
          python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure-0.0.3-1.fc19.src.rpm
python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsi
python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C fedmsg metadata providers for Fedora Infrastructure's deployment
python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsi
python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http -> HTTP
python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US webapps -> web apps, web-apps, weapons
python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US realtime -> mealtime, real time, real-time
python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fedoraproject -> fedora project, fedora-project, projector
python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsi
python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C fedmsg metadata providers for Fedora Infrastructure's deployment
python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsi
python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http -> HTTP
python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US webapps -> web apps, web-apps, weapons
python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US realtime -> mealtime, real time, real-time
python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fedoraproject -> fedora project, fedora-project, projector
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 14 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure
python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal
python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C fedmsg metadata providers for Fedora Infrastructure's deployment
python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal
python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http -> HTTP
python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US webapps -> web apps, web-apps, weapons
python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US realtime -> mealtime, real time, real-time
python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fedoraproject -> fedora project, fedora-project, projector
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure-0.0.3-1.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    
    fedmsg >= 0.6.1
    python(abi) = 2.7
    python-argparse  
    python-ordereddict  



Provides
--------
python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure-0.0.3-1.fc19.noarch.rpm:
    
    python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure = 0.0.3-1.fc19



MD5-sum check
-------------
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/f/fedmsg_meta_fedora_infrastructure/fedmsg_meta_fedora_infrastructure-0.0.3.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 53f27fc1de5209ef18cc5ffe4ccb3a82699fdf3a9115cb68cc82685c49c3ca74
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 53f27fc1de5209ef18cc5ffe4ccb3a82699fdf3a9115cb68cc82685c49c3ca74

----------------

PACKAGE APPROVED

----------------

Comment 3 Ralph Bean 2012-11-30 13:22:17 UTC
Thanks for the review, Eduardo.  I can probably rename the summary to "Metadata providers for Fedora Infrastructure's fedmsg deployment" to get rid of the warning.  Will do so before importing.

Comment 4 Ralph Bean 2012-11-30 13:23:31 UTC
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure
Short Description: fedmsg metadata providers for Fedora Infrastructure's deployment
Owners: ralph
Branches: f18 f17 el6
InitialCC:

Comment 5 Gwyn Ciesla 2012-11-30 13:52:33 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2012-11-30 15:43:14 UTC
python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure-0.0.3-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure-0.0.3-1.fc18

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2012-11-30 15:43:35 UTC
python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure-0.0.3-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure-0.0.3-1.fc17

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2012-11-30 15:43:54 UTC
python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure-0.0.3-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure-0.0.3-1.el6

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2012-12-11 01:24:51 UTC
python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure-0.0.3-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2012-12-11 06:04:08 UTC
python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure-0.0.3-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2013-01-04 19:39:35 UTC
python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure-0.0.3-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.

Comment 12 Eduardo Echeverria 2013-01-06 05:53:04 UTC
All packages are marked as stable now, that's why it is time to close this bug now.


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