Spec URL: http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/python-rsslib.spec SRPM URL: http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SRPMS/python-rsslib-0-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: This library encapsulates the generation of an RSS (2.0) feed. Fedora Account System Username: konradm N.B.: This is a blocker for #519652 (SABnzbd+)
RPM lint clean: python-rsslib.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
I'll review this one.
Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable[?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires - I can't find any copyright notice in this. Shouldn't the license be Public Domain? - The definitions of python_sitelib is already present in current Fedora, so remove the top lines (unless you are heading for EPEL, looking at the rest of the spec I'm assuming you're not) - You have no actual way to indicate what version you have here - if that file changes it would just be something like 0.2. I suggest you treat this like a pre-release and adds a release tag indicating the date, something like Release: 1.20130310%{?dist}. ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [!]: 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/mk/FedoraReview/917330-python- rsslib/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). ----> See Issues on python_sitelib. [!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. ---> See Issues on release tag. [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [-]: 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 contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [-]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. ---> yes you do, but without %setup it's the correct way. [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 uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python ---> Besides BR: python{2,3}-devel missing in the Issues: list. [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]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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]: 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 unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-rsslib-0-1.fc17.noarch.rpm python-rsslib.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-rsslib python-rsslib.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python-rsslib (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python-rsslib: python-rsslib MD5-sum check ------------- http://berserk.org/rsslib/rsslib.txt : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a99c07024f310fb7cb9dcf8d2575fbeaf54847af7577cd4ca2dfeae6a9fe1ba6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a99c07024f310fb7cb9dcf8d2575fbeaf54847af7577cd4ca2dfeae6a9fe1ba6 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (89fef59) last change: 2013-03-08 Buildroot used: fedora-17-i386 Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 917330
(In reply to comment #3) > Package Review ... > [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable[?] = Not evaluated > - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires Done. > - I can't find any copyright notice in this. Shouldn't the license be > Public Domain? The license I see is: "You may freely use this code in any way you can think of." Which, while quite permissive, does not say "this code is released into the public domain." So I think "copyright only" with basically unlimited license is more accurate than Public Domain. > - The definitions of python_sitelib is already present in current > Fedora, so remove the top lines (unless you are heading for EPEL, > looking at the rest of the spec I'm assuming you're not) Done. > - You have no actual way to indicate what version you have here - if > that file changes it would just be something like 0.2. I suggest you > treat this like a pre-release and adds a release tag indicating the > date, something like Release: 1.20130310%{?dist}. Sure, seems reasonable. My line of thought was that this was overkill for such a tiny library with dead upstream. Done. > ===== MUST items ===== > > Generic: > [!]: 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/mk/FedoraReview/917330-python- > rsslib/licensecheck.txt Sorry, what's the issue here? > [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory > names). > ----> See Issues on python_sitelib. (Done.) > [!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. > ---> See Issues on release tag. (Done.) > [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should > provide egg info. (N.B., this packaging creates a setup.py for this project and installs an egg.) New spec, SRPM. Bumped to 0-2.20130310, fixed BR on python2-devel, removed python_sitelib macro: http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/python-rsslib.spec http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SRPMS/python-rsslib-0-2.20130310.fc17.src.rpm Thanks for the review!
(In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) [cut] > > > - I can't find any copyright notice in this. Shouldn't the license be > > Public Domain? > > The license I see is: "You may freely use this code in any way you can think > of." Which, while quite permissive, does not say "this code is released into > the public domain." So I think "copyright only" with basically unlimited > license is more accurate than Public Domain. At a second thought you're right. Agreed. > > ===== MUST items ===== > > > > Generic: > > [!]: 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/mk/FedoraReview/917330-python- > > rsslib/licensecheck.txt > > Sorry, what's the issue here? Already handled above, sorry for clumsy writing. Forget it ;) [cut] > > New spec, SRPM. Bumped to 0-2.20130310, fixed BR on python2-devel, removed > python_sitelib macro: > > http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/python-rsslib.spec Old spec file?! > http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SRPMS/python-rsslib-0-2.20130310.fc17. > src.rpm New spec file bundled in srpm is OK > Thanks for the review! Your're welcome! A last remark: You can simplify the spec even further using the upcoming patch which evolved after writing the review. Use it if you want, no review remark as such. ***Approved
Created attachment 708227 [details] SUggested fix Suggested fix, setting review flag
Fixing review flag after restarting browser (again, sigh)
(In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > New spec, SRPM. Bumped to 0-2.20130310, fixed BR on python2-devel, removed > > python_sitelib macro: > > > > http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/python-rsslib.spec > > Old spec file?! You may have to explicitly refresh, but I see the new spec there =). > A last remark: You can simplify the spec even further using the upcoming > patch which evolved after writing the review. Use it if you want, no review > remark as such. I'll take a look and probably apply it. Thanks again for the review!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-rsslib Short Description: Create RSS feeds in Python Owners: konradm Branches: f18 f17 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Built for rawhide, closing: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5108810 I'll push out F-18 and F-17 new-package updates as well (hoping to get sabnzbdplus into whatever is 'stable' when all the dependencies land). Thanks Alec, Jon.