Spec URL: http://ianweller.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/datagrepper/0.1-1/datagrepper.spec SRPM URL: http://ianweller.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/datagrepper/0.1-1/datagrepper-0.1-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: A webapp to retrieve historical information about messages on the fedmsg bus. It is a JSON api for the datanommer message store. Fedora Account System Username: ianweller
Hi, python policy requires to be explicit on python version for -devel ( ie python2-devel, or python3-devel )
Package Review ============== Legend: [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 - Config file not marked as noreplace - missing License in tarball, should be asked upstream - why does it have his own user created in %post ? - no need for macro pyver and python_sitelib since that's supported on RHEL6 ===== 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. [!]: 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". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/955781-datagrepper/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. Note: No (noreplace) in %config /etc/datagrepper/ [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [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]: 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]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [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 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. [!]: 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. [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. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %{!?python_sitelib: %define python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get _python_lib; print get_python_lib()")}, %{!?pyver: %define pyver %(%{__python} -c "import sys ; print sys.version[:3]")}, %define modname datagrepper, %define eggname datagrepper [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== 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: datagrepper-0.1-1.fc19.noarch.rpm datagrepper.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) webapp -> web app, web-app, weapon datagrepper.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US webapp -> web app, web-app, weapon datagrepper.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US api -> pi, ape, apt datagrepper.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datanommer -> manometer datagrepper.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/datagrepper/datagrepper.cfg datagrepper.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/datagrepper/default_config.py datagrepper.noarch: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/datagrepper/datagrepper.cfg datagrepper.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /etc/datagrepper/datagrepper.cfg datagrepper.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/datagrepper/apache/datagrepper.wsgi 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint datagrepper datagrepper.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) webapp -> web app, web-app, weapon datagrepper.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US webapp -> web app, web-app, weapon datagrepper.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US api -> pi, ape, apt datagrepper.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datanommer -> manometer datagrepper.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/datagrepper/datagrepper.cfg datagrepper.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/datagrepper/default_config.py datagrepper.noarch: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/datagrepper/datagrepper.cfg datagrepper.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /etc/datagrepper/datagrepper.cfg datagrepper.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/datagrepper/apache/datagrepper.wsgi 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 5 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- datagrepper (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh config(datagrepper) fedmsg python(abi) python-datanommer-models python-docutils python-flask python-flask-sqlalchemy python-flask-wtf python-kitchen python-psycopg2 python-sqlalchemy Provides -------- datagrepper: config(datagrepper) datagrepper Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/d/datagrepper/datagrepper-0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ef834abd8f91f4b64b0666110724a5dcc26c3ac9acb35e7876018e434101ce7d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ef834abd8f91f4b64b0666110724a5dcc26c3ac9acb35e7876018e434101ce7d Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (cf29f98) last change: 2013-02-08 Buildroot used: fedora-19-x86_64 Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 955781
In response to one of the comments: > - why does it have his own user created in %post ? This is so that mod_wsgi can run processes as this user. This is for separation for security, so that if one mod_wsgi process is compromised, it cannot as easily access data available to other web applications on the same server. The other comments look correct and should be easy to fix in a second review release.
But there is no apache configuration to take care of this, so I do not think that's up to the package to do it ( at least, no to do half of the work for that ).
(In reply to comment #2) > - no need for macro pyver and python_sitelib since that's supported on RHEL6 as far as I can tell nothing defines %pyver so I left it in. * Fri May 03 2013 Ian Weller <iweller> - 0.1.1-1 - Update to upstream 0.1.1 (adds license text) - Fix python2-devel BR - Mark config file as noreplace - Remove useradd commands in post - Install sample httpd configuration file - Add version to requires on datanommer.models - Remove python_sitelib macro definition Spec: http://ianweller.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/datagrepper/0.1.1-1/datagrepper.spec SRPM: http://ianweller.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/datagrepper/0.1.1-1/datagrepper-0.1.1-1.fc18.src.rpm
Indeed, but you should use %python_version rather than %pyver But that's a detai easy to fix later, so let's say the package is approved.
Aha, wasn't aware that's what the macro was called. Thanks!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: datagrepper Short Description: A webapp to query fedmsg history Owners: ianweller ralph Branches: el6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
This update made it to stable and the ticket can be closed. https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/datagrepper