Request for review: pygsl

[José Matos]

Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:

>> 
>>   I have done all the process to become an FE packager.
> 
> And I just sponsored you.

  Thank you. :-)

>>   -License: Although the project is GPL (it is clearly placed in the
>> sources) there isn't no license in the source package.
> 
> Find a copy of the GPL and put it in as Source1.

  OK. I copied emacs license file just to be sure. ;-)
  Done.

  I sent a message to pygsl mail list pointing this problem.

>>   -FC3: This version of pygsl does not compile in FC3 since it links to
>> wavelets that are only present in gsl 1.6. Also the previous version
>> 0.3.1 doesn't compile in FC4.
> 
> Then you won't need an FC-3 branch for this package. :)

  I took the chance to warn the developers about this issue. Since I don't
use FC3 anymore... :-)

>>   I have compile this using mock in i386 and x86_64 architecture without
>> problems, the only complain of rpmlint is that:
>> 
>>   - there is no binary
>>   - several example files are not non executable scripts
>> 
>>   I think that these are harmless...
> 
> Yeah, I think so too.
> 
> Review of pygsl:
> 
> rpmlint checks:
> No output
> 
> Bad:
> - Prefix: %{_prefix} makes this package relocatable. If you really want
> to do this, you have to make a good case in the request for review (see
> the MUST on relocatable packages in
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageReviewGuidelines). You're probably
> better off just removing this line.
> 
> - Vendor and Packager fields are set, they should be removed.

  I have removed then since the spec file initially was generated using the
distutils package.
  Done.

> - Source0 is not presented as the URL for the upstream source. This is
> important because reviewers need to check that the source in your SRPM
> matches the upstream source.
> Replace your existing Source0 line with:
> Source0: http://dl.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

  Done.

> - /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/pygsl is not owned by the package,
> when it should be (again, this is a byproduct of using a filelist for
> python packages, it will not mark directories, only files)
> Adding this line to the %files entry should do the trick:
> %dir %{python_sitearch}/pysql

  I think that it should be like Michael wrote:
%{python_sitearch}/pysql/

  No?

> You also need to add this line to the top of your spec (to safely use
> %{python_sitearch}:
> 
> %{!?python_sitearch: %define python_sitearch %(%{__python} -c "from
> distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print get_python_lib(1)")}

  Done that or else it would fail on x86_64...

> - You need to include a copy of the License (GPL) in the package. You
> can do this by downloading gpl.txt from:
> 
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.txt
> 
> Then, you can add:
> 
> Source1: gpl.txt
> 
> In %build:
> 
> cp %{SOURCE1} .
> 
> And in %doc, add gpl.txt to the end of the existing line.

  Done.

> (NOTE: You really want to push upstream to include the license text for
> you, because without it, they're technically in violation of the GPL)

  Done.

> Good:
> - Package is named according to PackageNamingGuidelines
> - spec file name matches %{name}
> - License (GPL) OK, matches source license (but license is missing)
> - Spec file is in Am. English, is legible
> - Sources match upstream
> - Package compiles and builds on x86 (FC4)
> - No extra BuildRequires used
> - All other build deps in BuildRequires
> - No locales in spec files
> - No need for -devel or -docs subpackages
> - Permissions set correctly on files
> - %clean section exists
> - macro usage is consistent
> - package is code, not content
> - nothing in %doc affects runtime
> - no static libraries
> 
> You've got some work ahead of you, but it is your first package. Fix
> those blocker items and I'll take another look at it.

  Ok, new version available:
http://www.fc.up.pt/pessoas/jamatos/pygsl.spec
http://www.fc.up.pt/pessoas/jamatos/pygsl-0.3.2-2.src.rpm

  And this I have verified that I have the right version. ;-)

> Remember that http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageNamingGuidelines,
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageReviewGuidelines and
> http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines are your
> friends. :)

  Thank you for your support. :-)

> ~spot

-- 
José Abílio