[Bug 219071] Review Request: pyfribidi - A Python binding for GNU FriBidi

Thu Dec 28 11:54:36 UTC 2006

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: pyfribidi - A Python binding for GNU FriBidi

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219071

------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp  2006-12-28 06:54 EST -------
I am not willing, however I attach a detail for
submitter's benefit.

>From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines :

= Naming (pyfribidi) is consistent with source tarball
= License is OSI approved  (GPL)
= License document is really consistent with source codes
= License document is included
= This is not shareware
= Patents issue is not found
= This is not a emulator
= No binary firmware is included
= Putting files into %{_libexecdir} is not needed, no
  wrapper script is needed
= rpmlint for srpm is silent
= rpmlint for binary rpm is silent
= rpmlint for installed rpm is silent
= Changelog is properly written
= Tags are properly handled
= Buildroot description is okay
= For Requires:
  This package does not require anything other than
  dependencies automatically pulled by rpmbuild from
  libraries' dependency.
  For this package, this is correct
= Mockbuild is okay.
= No redundant BuildRequires are included
= Summary and description are okay
= The included text files have no special encodings
= Documentation needed to be included
  - AUTHORS
  - COPYING
  - ChangeLog
  = All added (ChangeLog is added on -2)
= Mockbuild log says that 
  = fedora specific compilation flags are passed
  = -fPIC is correctly used for .so file
= No static libraries nor .la files
= There is no libraries duplicate of system libraries
= /usr/lib/rpm/check-rpaths-worker `rpm -ql pyfribidi`
  does not complain
= This package has no %config file
= Do desktop files are needed
= Macros are correctly used
= No mixed usage of %{buildroot} <-> $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
= %makeinstall is not used
= This package has no gettext mo files
= ... not needed to check timestamps for this package
  (accroding to `rpm -ql pyfribidi`)
= ... not needed to use "parallel make" as this use
  distutils.core in python
= No scriptlets are needed
= No worry about conditional dependency
= Mockbuild is okay so normal users' rpmbuild should
  succeed
= No relocatable description is written
= No unacceptable code/content is included in source
  tarball
= Unowned directories:
 /usr -> filesystem
 /usr/lib -> filesystem
 /usr/lib/python2.5 -> python
 /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/
 /usr/share/ -> filesystem
 /usr/share/doc  -> filesystem
 = all okay
= Owned directories:
  /usr/share/doc/pyfribidi-0.6.0
  = only owned by this package
= This is not web application and /var/www is not used

>From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python :
= Python version description is no longer needed
= site_arch usage is properly used (this is arch-dependent
  and some codes are written in C)
= setuptools/eggs ... not needed...
= pyo file is included
= No needed to worry about unnecessary bite compilation

Special note about python related package:
= Note: for some python related package manual check of
  what the package require as runtime is needed. This
  is usually done by checking "import" sentence.

  For this package, no worry is needed for manual checking
  of python related requirement.

Then From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines :
= rpmlint is no problem (already described)
= Naming is okay (already described)
= spec file naming is consistent with package name
= License issue is okay (already described)
= Well, actually I don't like to use dl.sourceforge.net description
  because this requires many time to resolve DNS (and in many
  cases it fails... for me), however some reviewers say that
  dl.sourceforge.net should be used... so I leave as it is
= md5sum value coincides.
= License documents are included (already described)
= I can read this spec file with ease
= Mockbuild is okay for FC-devel i386 (already described)
= BuildRequires okay (already described)
= ldconfig not needed
= relocatable description is not written (already described)
= permissions of files are correct
  (checked by rpm -qilvv pyfribidi)
= macros are correctly used (already described)
= code/content issues are okay (already described)
= No large documentations are added
= no %doc dependency
= no header files and -devel package is not needed
= no .la files nor static archives
= this is not a GUI package
= directory ownership is correct (already described)

Other things I have noticed
= mock build log is no problem
= file `rpm -ql pyfribidi` is no problem
= less /usr/share/doc/pyfribidi*/* is no problem
=
--------------------------------------------
[tasaka1 at softbank218114170036 pyfribidi-0.6.0]$ ldd -r
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pyfribidi.so 
undefined symbol: dlsym (/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pyfribidi.so)
undefined symbol: dlerror       (/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pyfribidi.so)
undefined symbol: log   (/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pyfribidi.so)
undefined symbol: fmod  (/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pyfribidi.so)
undefined symbol: forkpty       (/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pyfribidi.so)
undefined symbol: openpty       (/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pyfribidi.so)
undefined symbol: exp   (/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pyfribidi.so)
undefined symbol: sin   (/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pyfribidi.so)
undefined symbol: hypot (/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pyfribidi.so)
undefined symbol: pow   (/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pyfribidi.so)
undefined symbol: atan2 (/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pyfribidi.so)
undefined symbol: cos   (/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pyfribidi.so)
undefined symbol: dlopen        (/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pyfribidi.so)
        linux-gate.so.1 =>  (0x00748000)
        libfribidi.so.0 => /usr/lib/libfribidi.so.0 (0x00eb8000)
        libpthread.so.0 => /lib/libpthread.so.0 (0x004a8000)
        libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x0078b000)
        /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x00b8d000)
-------------------------------------------------
  - all undefined symbols are in 
    libm.so (used in /usr/lib/libpython2.5.so.1.0)
    libdl.so.2 (same as above)
    so they are okay

APPROVED (already)......

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.