[Bug 245688] Review Request: python-pywbem - Python WBEM client

[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: python-pywbem - Python WBEM client


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=245688


bugzilla at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Version|devel                       |rawhide

loupgaroublond at gmail.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |loupgaroublond at gmail.com




------- Additional Comments From loupgaroublond at gmail.com  2007-12-20 12:10 EST -------
I'm new, so I won't officially review this package, but let me start by giving
you a few pointers as best I can.

rpmlint returns:
[review at dao noarch]$ rpmlint python-pywbem-0.5-1.fc8.noarch.rpm 
python-pywbem.noarch: W: invalid-license LGPL

It needs a license version.  Refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing

Out of the following musts (abridged list for relevancy):
      - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted
in the review.
Done
      - MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
Good
      - MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming
Guidelines.
Good
      - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
Good so far
      - MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines.
I'm assuming you want the LGPLv2 for now, which passes.  Please be more explicit.
      - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
The actual license according to the README is LGPL.  According to one of the
files, it's LGPLv2+

      - MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.
Check
      - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
For what definition of American English?  Check ;)
      - MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is
unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora
is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest
(http://www.ioccc.org/).
Legible
      - MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
Good
      - MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms
on at least one supported architecture.
Compiles on i386
      - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. 
Not tested.  I should figure out how to do this.
      - MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines; inclusion
of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
I did not see any non standard python imports.  Check

      - MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory. Refer to the Guidelines for examples.
Check
      - MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
Check (It lists a directory.  I recommend that it be changed to a file list if
you can.)
      - MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be
set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include
a %defattr(...) line.
Check.
      - MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
CHeck
      - MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the
macros section of Packaging Guidelines.
Check
      - MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is
described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
Check
      - MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is not present.
Check
      - MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. 
AFAIC, Check
      - MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). See Prepping BuildRoot For %install for details.
Check
      - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
AFAIC, Check

The following shoulds:
- SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
Fail.  Please beg upstream for this.
- SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should
contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
Missing.  (My NB question, how is this accomplished?)
- SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See
MockTricks for details on how to do this.
- SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Not yet tested.
- SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
Not yet tested


Two final notes for now, Upstream has a new version out.  I checked, and it's
very similar.  I'm willing to continue this review on a new version.

The LICENSE file is missing, and this might make RMS angry.  Please contact
upstream to make sure his fine literature is disseminated in this package :).


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.