It is not clear to me whether anything is happening
or not.  I requested this in bugzilla 919961 and I can't
tell if that one has been closed or not, either.

If the problem is that this was somehow done for F18
and it's now too late for F19 (or whatever) can't this
still be done, for rawhide or F20 or whatever?

Thanks.

Status? perl-XML-Tiny

(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #2)
> Status? perl-XML-Tiny

Sorry, the delay is my mistake.


Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues (moved up, but also included in-line):
=======
- Permissions on files are set properly.
  Note: See rpmlint output
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions
- Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names).
  Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros
- hardcoded -O1 and no $RPM_OPT_FLAGS usage in %install section -- if necessary, a comment should be provided
- %defattr can be removed; not a blocker
- Maybe this is only my misunderstanding, but why we need -devel subpackage with the only one header file here? I thought having the base package should be enough to use that package for development.
- See comments in-line
- Project announces MIT on its web page but only BSD license is used in some source files. This should be communicated with upsteam so they idealy use proper MIT clause in every source file. Not a blocker though.
- BSD and MIT requires their text included https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
- I don't see it in the guidelines, but shouldn't there be "Requires: python3"?
- Version 6.0.0 is available
- Please see if the test case can be run in build-time.


===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[-]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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.
[-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.

- hardcoded -O1 and no $RPM_OPT_FLAGS usage in %install section -- if necessary, a comment should be provided

[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: %defattr present but not needed

- %defattr can be removed; not a blocker

[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[!]: Development files must be in a -devel package

- Maybe this is only my misunderstanding, but why we need -devel subpackage with the only one header file here? I thought having the base package should be enough to use that package for development.

[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.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines

- See comments in-line

[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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 70 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/hhorak/Downloads/python3-bsddb3
     /review-python3-bsddb3/licensecheck.txt

- Project announces MIT on its web page but only BSD license is used in some source files. This should be communicated with upsteam so they idealy use proper MIT clause in every source file. Not a blocker though.

[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.

- BSD and MIT requires their text included https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text

[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.

- I don't see it in the guidelines, but shouldn't there be "Requires: python3"?

[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
     Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[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).

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[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.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.

- Version 6.0.0 is available

[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.

- Please see if the test case can be run in build-time.

[?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
[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.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-bsddb3-5.3.0-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm
          python3-bsddb3-devel-5.3.0-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm
python3-bsddb3.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python3.3/site-packages/bsddb3/_pybsddb.cpython-33m.so 0775L
python3-bsddb3-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint python3-bsddb3 python3-bsddb3-devel
python3-bsddb3.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python3.3/site-packages/bsddb3/_pybsddb.cpython-33m.so 0775L
python3-bsddb3-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
python3-bsddb3 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/env
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libdb-5.3.so()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    libpython3.3m.so.1.0()(64bit)
    python(abi)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

python3-bsddb3-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python3-bsddb3(x86-64)



Provides
--------
python3-bsddb3:
    _pybsddb.cpython-33m.so()(64bit)
    python3-bsddb3
    python3-bsddb3(x86-64)

python3-bsddb3-devel:
    python3-bsddb3-devel
    python3-bsddb3-devel(x86-64)



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
python3-bsddb3: /usr/lib64/python3.3/site-packages/bsddb3/_pybsddb.cpython-33m.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/b/bsddb3/bsddb3-5.3.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 4619f6189e5f94e337c62ae398ccb9c25568f3c3cab39970a4ea7625d38f8b3e
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4619f6189e5f94e337c62ae398ccb9c25568f3c3cab39970a4ea7625d38f8b3e


Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29
Buildroot used: fedora-19-x86_64
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n python3-bsddb3

Most of the issues should now be resolved, see comments on some below.

Actual version:
 - Spec URL: http://jstanek.fedorapeople.org/python3-bsddb3/python3-bsddb3.spec
 - SRPM URL: http://jstanek.fedorapeople.org/python3-bsddb3/python3-bsddb3-6.0.0-1.fc19.src.rpm

Original version (links in the first comment no longer works):
 - Spec URL: http://jstanek.fedorapeople.org/python3-bsddb3/old/python3-bsddb3.spec.1
 - SRPM URL: http://jstanek.fedorapeople.org/python3-bsddb3/old/python3-bsddb3-5.3.0-1.fc18.src.rpm

(In reply to Honza Horak from comment #3)
> - Permissions on files are set properly.
>   Note: See rpmlint output
>   See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions
> ...
> python3-bsddb3.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python3.3/site-packages/bsddb3/_pybsddb.cpython-33m.so 0775L
rpmlint complains about non-standard executable .so, but I checked other built python3 modules and this .so is where it belongs, with proper rights (when I tried to make it non-executable, the module testsuite complained).

> - Project announces MIT on its web page but only BSD license is used in some
> source files. This should be communicated with upstream so they ideally use
> proper MIT clause in every source file. Not a blocker though.
> - BSD and MIT requires their text included
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
Upstream confirmed the 3-clause BSD license for the entire project and acknowledged these issues with promise of fixing them in the next release.

Thanks, it looks fine, except the last two issues probably:

- packaging header file /usr/include/python3.3m/bsddb3/bsddb.h is not necessary IMHO. Or is there any reason to do so?

- BSD license file should be provided since BSD requires a copy of license to be distributed together with sources (if upstream doesn't package the BSD license file in the tar ball, which they should, we should add it manually):
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text

(In reply to Honza Horak from comment #5)
> - packaging header file /usr/include/python3.3m/bsddb3/bsddb.h is not
> necessary IMHO. Or is there any reason to do so?

It is probably not necessary, however it is installed by the upstream setup script. Of course I can remove it, but since upstream decided to ship it, I think it should stay there, to be as close to the upstream version as possible.

(In reply to Jan Staněk from comment #6)
> (In reply to Honza Horak from comment #5)
> > - packaging header file /usr/include/python3.3m/bsddb3/bsddb.h is not
> > necessary IMHO. Or is there any reason to do so?
> 
> It is probably not necessary, however it is installed by the upstream setup
> script. Of course I can remove it, but since upstream decided to ship it, I
> think it should stay there, to be as close to the upstream version as
> possible.

Staying close to upstream is generally good approach, especially when speaking about functionality/features. But I wouldn't take it too strict when speaking about content of RPMs. Removing unneeded stuff from RPM payload is quite common thing. Anyway, I'm not Python expert, but since no other module seems to do the same, I'd say it is pointless:

$ repoquery --whatprovides --archlist='x86_64,noarch' '*/usr/include/python3.3m/*.h'
python3-devel-0:3.3.2-6.fc19.x86_64
python3-libs-0:3.3.2-2.fc19.x86_64
python3-libs-0:3.3.2-6.fc19.x86_64
python3-devel-0:3.3.2-2.fc19.x86_64
python3-sip-devel-0:4.14.6-1.fc19.x86_64

However, let's ask Python guru, what he things about packaging /usr/include/python3.3m/bsddb3/bsddb.h file. Slavku, can you express your POV?

Hmm, we usually don't ship *.h files with Python extension packages, but I guess it depends on the use case. If there are some other libraries/users that may need including these headers, then shipping them in -devel subpackage is probably fine. Usually, this is not a case, so I'd advise to not ship the headers.

OK then, I removed the header from the final package.

I also added LICENSE file as separate (local) source, until upstream releases updated version with (hopefully) fixed licensing issues.

Here is the current version:
Spec URL: http://jstanek.fedorapeople.org/python3-bsddb3/python3-bsddb3.spec
SRPM URL: http://jstanek.fedorapeople.org/python3-bsddb3/python3-bsddb3-6.0.0-1.fc19.src.rpm

Sounds fine for me now.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: python3-bsddb3
Short Description: Python 3 bindings for BerkeleyDB
Owners: jstanek
Branches: f19 f20
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

python3-bsddb3-6.0.0-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python3-bsddb3-6.0.0-1.fc20

python3-bsddb3-6.0.0-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python3-bsddb3-6.0.0-1.fc19

Package submitted for testing, should be available in updates repo for Fedora 19 & 20 within a week.

Thank you.

python3-bsddb3-6.0.0-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.

python3-bsddb3-6.0.0-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.

python3-bsddb3-6.0.0-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.