Spec: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/xpra/python-webm.spec SRPM: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/xpra/python-webm-0.2.2-1.fc19.src.rpm Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5273537 FAS username: patches Description: The python-webm package is an interface to the WebM video/image codec. The interface uses ctypes to call the libvpx/libwebm Google libraries installed in the system. At the moment only the libwebm library is wrapped and with some limitations. % rpmlint SRPMS/python-webm-0.2.2-1.fc19.src.rpm RPMS/noarch/python-webm-0.2.2-1.fc19.noarch.rpm python-webm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code, codes False positive, computing term. python-webm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ctypes -> types, c types python-webm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libvpx -> libel python-webm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libwebm -> libel False positive, library names. python-webm.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://python-webm.googlecode.com/files/python-webm-0.2.2.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found Temporary network issue, URL is valid. python-webm.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libwebp This is a noarch Python package that uses ctypes to dlopen an arched library. python-webm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code, codes python-webm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ctypes -> types, c types python-webm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libvpx -> libel python-webm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libwebm -> libel Addressed above. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 9 warnings.
Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires > BuildRequires: python-devel Please specify python2-devel. ===== 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 contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [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 [-]: 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 complies to the 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (2 clause)". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mrnuke/rpmbuild/review/953701-python- webm/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [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. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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]: 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]: 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. [?]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). =========================== > #use the right library > sed -i 's/libwebp\.so\.0/libwebp\.so\.4/' webm/__init__.py Depending on a specific soversion is fine. How does this handle the case when libwebp soversion is bumped? > $ rpm -qRp python-webm-0.2.2-1.fc18.noarch.rpm > libwebp > ... This seems incomplete, since the package depends explicitly on libwebp.so.4 --------------------------- [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [X]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: 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. ===== 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: python-webm-0.2.2-1.fc18.noarch.rpm python-webm.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libwebp python-webm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code, codes python-webm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ctypes -> types, c types python-webm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libvpx -> libel python-webm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libwebm -> libel 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. ========== Spelling is OK. ---------- Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-webm python-webm.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libwebp python-webm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code, codes python-webm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ctypes -> types, c types python-webm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libvpx -> libel python-webm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libwebm -> libel 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python-webm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libwebp python(abi) python-imaging Provides -------- python-webm: python-webm MD5-sum check ------------- https://python-webm.googlecode.com/files/python-webm-0.2.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5e5f32f968e082b3f6bd96f7e62d232767af283743e9b01a805d0c3b13914091 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5e5f32f968e082b3f6bd96f7e62d232767af283743e9b01a805d0c3b13914091 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29 Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 953701 ========== > License: BSD Withespace after BSD ----------
(In reply to comment #1) > [?]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). > =========================== > > #use the right library > > sed -i 's/libwebp\.so\.0/libwebp\.so\.4/' webm/__init__.py > > Depending on a specific soversion is fine. How does this handle the case when > libwebp soversion is bumped? If there's a soname bump I'd really want to retest the package to make sure it still works properly and rebuild. Even though ctypes-based libraries don't break obviously like regularly linked libraries do there's still plenty of room for unobvious breakage, and ctypes libraries are notorious for that. I'd rather get the broken dependency e-mail and be forced to test and rebuild than let it potentially break silently. I macroified the soname just to make bumping it easier in the future, though. > > $ rpm -qRp python-webm-0.2.2-1.fc18.noarch.rpm > > libwebp > > ... > > This seems incomplete, since the package depends explicitly on libwebp.so.4 > --------------------------- You're right. Unfortuntately, there's no way to depend on the soname-based virtual provides from a noarch package properly, so this package ended up becoming arched as a result. It's probably for the best, because even though it's a pure Python package this will make it work in a multilib world more nicely. -- Spec: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/xpra/python-webm.spec SRPM: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/xpra/python-webm-0.2.2-1.fc19.src.rpm Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5336906 * Mon May 06 2013 T.C. Hollingsworth <tchollingsworth> - 0.2.2-2 - fix up dependency on libwebp (package became arched as a result) - fix License tag - explicitly list python version in BuildRequires - be more verbose when running tests
(In reply to comment #2) > > This seems incomplete, since the package depends explicitly on libwebp.so.4 > > --------------------------- > > You're right. Unfortuntately, there's no way to depend on the soname-based > virtual provides from a noarch package properly, so this package ended up > becoming arched as a result. It's probably for the best, because even > though it's a pure Python package this will make it work in a multilib world > more nicely. I think you made the right choice. My job here is done :P. The package is APPROVED :)
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-webm Short Description: Python wrapper to WebM libraries Owners: patches Branches: f19 f18 f17 el6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
python-webm-0.2.2-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-webm-0.2.2-2.fc18
python-webm-0.2.2-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-webm-0.2.2-2.fc17
python-webm-0.2.2-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-webm-0.2.2-2.fc19
python-webm-0.2.2-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.
python-webm-0.2.2-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
python-webm-0.2.2-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
python-webm-0.2.2-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.