Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/python-gd.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/python-gd-0.56-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: The GDmodule is an interface to the GD library written by Thomas Boutell. 'gd is a graphics library. It allows your code to quickly draw images complete with lines, arcs, text, multiple colors, cut and paste from other images, and flood fills, and write out the result as a PNG or JPEG file. This is particularly useful in World Wide Web applications, where PNG and JPEG are two of the formats accepted for inline images by most browsers.' Fedora Account System Username: pcpa
This module is required by my sagemath work in progress package. Without it: -%<- $ sage -t /usr/lib64/sagemath/devel/sage/sage/matrix/matrix2.pyx sage -t "devel/sage/sage/matrix/matrix2.pyx" ********************************************************************** File "/usr/lib64/sagemath/devel/sage/sage/matrix/matrix2.pyx", line 7336: sage: M.visualize_structure(os.path.join(SAGE_TMP, "matrix.png")) Exception raised: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/lib64/sagemath/local/bin/ncadoctest.py", line 1231, in run_one_test self.run_one_example(test, example, filename, compileflags) File "/usr/lib64/sagemath/local/bin/sagedoctest.py", line 38, in run_one_example OrigDocTestRunner.run_one_example(self, test, example, filename, compileflags) File "/usr/lib64/sagemath/local/bin/ncadoctest.py", line 1172, in run_one_example compileflags, 1) in test.globs File "<doctest __main__.example_91[3]>", line 1, in <module> M.visualize_structure(os.path.join(SAGE_TMP, "matrix.png"))###line 7336: sage: M.visualize_structure(os.path.join(SAGE_TMP, "matrix.png")) File "matrix2.pyx", line 7338, in sage.matrix.matrix2.Matrix.visualize_structure (sage/matrix/matrix2.c:38883) ImportError: No module named gd ********************************************************************** 1 items had failures: 1 of 5 in __main__.example_91 ***Test Failed*** 1 failures. For whitespace errors, see the file /home/pcpa/.sage/tmp/matrix2_4456.py [16.4 s] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The following tests failed: sage -t "devel/sage/sage/matrix/matrix2.pyx" Total time for all tests: 16.4 seconds -%<- With it: -%<- $ sage -t /usr/lib64/sagemath/devel/sage/sage/matrix/matrix2.pyx sage -t "devel/sage/sage/matrix/matrix2.pyx" [35.1 s] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- All tests passed! Total time for all tests: 35.1 seconds -%<-
On a first glance, this looks OK except for the permissions: python-gd.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/_gd.so 0775L This should not be group writeable. Full review to come.
Many thanks for the initial look at it. I made some minor changes to it: - Do not provide a private shared object. - Correct permissions of the installed shared object. Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/python-gd.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/python-gd-0.56-2.fc19.src.rpm
Thanks for the fixes. While combing through the review items I noticed one potential problem: How did you determine the license? It could be that it's a non-issue because its just a module binding, but upstream contains nothing but the copyright notice. Please comment on the license situation.
I had packaged it for Mandriva some years ago and forgot about it. I just sent an email to the current maintainer asking for information. BTW, verbatim Debian copyright file is: ---%<--- This work was packaged for Debian by: Ben Pfaff <pfaffben> on Sunday, Feb. 10, 2002 It was downloaded from http://newcenturycomputers.net/projects/gdmodule.html Upstream Author: Jones <richard.au> Copyright: Copyright (c) 1995 Richard Jones License: Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted under the terms of the BSD License. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE REGENTS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. On Debian systems, the complete text of the BSD License can be found in `/usr/share/common-licenses/BSD'. The Debian packaging is: Copyright (C) 2009 Julián Moreno Patiño <darkjunix> Copyright (C) 2002 Ben Pfaff <pfaffben> # Please chose a license for your packaging work. If the program you package # uses a mainstream license, using the same license is the safest choice. # Please avoid to pick license terms that are more restrictive than the # packaged work, as it may make Debian's contributions unacceptable upstream. # If you just want it to be GPL version 3, leave the following lines in. and is licensed under the GPL version 2, see `/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2'. ---%<--- I see it is also a good idea to remake the tarball, Debian remakes it due to the adventure.ttf file in the tarball, not used, but of unknown license. README.debian from the debian python-gd package: ---%<--- python-gd for Debian ------------------- Mantainer: The original source was renamed from gdmodule to python-gd to fit debian package name on repository. Also, the file adventure.ttf was removed for copyright issues and upstream tarball was repackaged adding +dfsg suffix. -- Julián Moreno Patiño <darkjunix> Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:31:27 -0500 ---%<---
Created attachment 688388 [details] python-gd-mail.txt I will also remake the tarball to remove the ttf font as done by Debian.
Update: - Add LICENSE file given by upstream (#901872). - Repackage the tarball to remove a bundlled ttf file (reported upstream). Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/python-gd.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/python-gd-0.56-3.fc19.src.rpm
Update: - Preserve timestamp of the LICENSE file. Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/python-gd.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/python-gd-0.56-4.fc19.src.rpm
So, you're good to go provided you add one minor item so that the compiler flags are obeyed: CFLAGS="%{optflags}" %{__python} Setup.py build (Unless there's some magic that I've overlooked.) All other things are OK, all exceptions (such as seemingly missing source) are according to to the guidelines. Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. 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. [!]: %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: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mjg/fedora-review/901872-python-gd/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. [-]: 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. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 10240 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 [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find sources under BUILD (using prebuilt sources?) [-]: 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) [ ]: 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). [x]: 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. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0 (gdmodule-0.56-clean.tar.gz) Source1 (LICENSE) [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. [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. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-gd-0.56-4.fc18.src.rpm python-gd-debuginfo-0.56-4.fc18.x86_64.rpm python-gd-0.56-4.fc18.x86_64.rpm python-gd.src: W: invalid-url Source0: gdmodule-0.56-clean.tar.gz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-gd python-gd-debuginfo 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python-gd-debuginfo-0.56-4.fc18.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python-gd-0.56-4.fc18.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gd >= 2.0.23 libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXpm.so.4()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libfreetype.so.6()(64bit) libgd.so.2()(64bit) libgif.so.4()(64bit) libjpeg.so.62()(64bit) libpng15.so.15()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython2.7.so.1.0()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) python(abi) = 2.7 rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- python-gd-debuginfo-0.56-4.fc18.x86_64.rpm: python-gd-debuginfo = 0.56-4.fc18 python-gd-debuginfo(x86-64) = 0.56-4.fc18 python-gd-0.56-4.fc18.x86_64.rpm: python-gd = 0.56-4.fc18 python-gd(x86-64) = 0.56-4.fc18 Unversioned so-files -------------------- python-gd-0.56-4.fc18.x86_64.rpm: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/_gd.so MD5-sum check ------------- Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16 Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 901872
(In reply to comment #9) Many thanks for the review! > So, you're good to go provided you add one minor item so that the compiler > flags are obeyed: > > CFLAGS="%{optflags}" %{__python} Setup.py build > > (Unless there's some magic that I've overlooked.) I added it for the sake of completeness, but it should not be required, but I cannot properly explain how python distutils, can basically tell that looking at the build log it gets the proper/expected values for CFLAGS, LD, etc. > All other things are OK, all exceptions (such as seemingly missing source) > are according to to the guidelines. Update: - Explicitly set CFLAGS (#901872). Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/python-gd.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/python-gd-0.56-5.fc19.src.rpm
Thanks for the addition, it makes it clearer that flags go through. Review complete and successful (+ flag). Feel free to fire an scm request.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-gd Short Description: Python GD module Owners: pcpa Branches: f18 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
python-gd-0.56-5.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-gd-0.56-5.fc18
python-gd-0.56-5.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.
python-gd-0.56-5.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.