[Bug 193712] Review Request: sos

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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: sos


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193712





------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2006-06-23 13:36 EST -------
Howdy, Steve.  Since this is your first Extras package, I did a bit of searching
but didn't see any other reviews or package submissions by you.  Might I suggest
that you take a look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/HowToGetSponsored
for some tips.  Basically, a sponsor has to decide whether or not it looks as if
you understand the packaging guidelines; a single package submission is often
not enough for us to determine that.  Have you commented on other reviews? 
Since you're a Red Hat employee, do you maintain any packages in Core that we
might look at?  Feel free to let us know.

Now, some comments on the package at hand.  From the above comments one might
thing that everything is smooth sailing, but I had some trouble.  In fact, the
package doesn't build for me in mock.  I get down to the end and then:

Processing files: sos-0.1-5.fc6
error: File not found:
/var/tmp/sos-0.1-5.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/python2.4/site-packages/sos
plus a bunch of cascading errors.  The cause seems to be simple; this is a
noarch package, but you specify %{python_sitearch} for your files.  On i386 the
locations happen to be identical, but on x86_64 arch-specific libraries go under
/usr/lib64.  Use %{python_sitelib} instead; things will build then.

Some other issues:

You shouldn't use Vendor:.

There's no reason for Provides: sos; a package automatically provides itself. 
This causes the following rpmlint error:
E: sos useless-explicit-provides sos

Don't indent your %description.

I'm assuming you're the upstream for this and that there's no location where the
source tarball can be downloaded directory.  This is acceptable.

BR: python is redundant; it's already in the buildroot.  FC3 and later all have
the required python version so there won't be any problems with the version.

Requires: python is also redundant; RPM will find the python(abi) dependency itself.

You obsolete sysreport, but don't provide it.  Generally obsoletes are provided
so that people can still install under the old names.  However, if the obsoleted
package version was never in Core or Extras then this is acceptable (and you
should consider just removing the obsolete).  This causes the following rpmlint
error:
E: sos obsolete-not-provided sysreport

rpmlint also complains about many of the python source files:
E: sos non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/sos/plugins/general.py 0644
(and so on).  The problem is that these files start with
#!/usr/bin/env python
but they're not actually scripts.  Are those files supposed to do anything if
you run them?  If so, they should be executable.  If not, they shouldn't have
the shebang line.  Python programs seem to do this often but I haven't ever
understood why.

Note that rpm will byte-compile and optomize every single .py file it finds. 
This results in your packaging the .pyo files, which shouldn't be packaged. 
Generally you should %ghost these in the file list.

-- 
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.