[Bug 430429] Review Request: python-storm - An object-relational mapper (ORM) for Python

[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-storm - An object-relational mapper (ORM) for Python


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=430429





------- Additional Comments From dtimms at iinet.net.au  2008-06-19 19:36 EST -------
! needs work.
OK no problemo
?? can't say/don't understand.

[OK] rpmlint .src.rpm = quiet

$ rpmbuild -ba:
+ /usr/lib/rpm/find-debuginfo.sh /home/davidt/src/redhat/BUILD/storm-0.12
find: debug: No such file or directory
    from what others have indicated, this is normal for no-arch python.

[OK] rpmlint /home/davidt/src/redhat/RPMS/noarch/python-storm*.rpm
python-storm-mysql.noarch: W: no-documentation
python-storm-postgresql.noarch: W: no-documentation
python-storm-sqlite.noarch: W: no-documentation

[OK] included source matches upstream: md5sum storm*bz*
python-storm-0.12-1.fc9.src/storm-0.12.tar.bz2 
976a332dadd214612c359df63360fc51  storm-0.12.tar.bz2.from_www
976a332dadd214612c359df63360fc51  python-storm-0.12-1.fc9.src/storm-0.12.tar.bz2
[OK] package name proceeded with python since it;s a python library.
[OK] spec named %name.spec
[OK] source tarball contains no prebuilt binaries/libraries.
[OK] files placed into FHS locations {x4 rpms}
[OK] changelog in standard format
[OK] correctly omits Packager, vendor, copyright, prereq 
    , includes license tag.
[OK] summary <80 chars, no ending period
[OK] source0 is correct:
    http://launchpad.net/storm/trunk/0.12/+download/storm-0.12.tar.bz2
[OK] buildroot set at second most proferred location.
[OK] %install correctly erases buildroot before build
[OK] mock build succeeds.
[OK] rpmdiff between default build and mock build shows only time
    {T} differences for folders and the pre-compiled .py[co] files
[OK] description is column limited to <80 chars, no manual/doc info.
[OK] charset is ascii
[OK] docs {license, readme, todo} included. readme points to web for docs.
[OK] debuginfo not expected in noarch application.
[OK] no static libraries, rpath, self copies of already packaged libaries
    etc, since pure python project.
[OK] no config, initscripts, desktop files since it's a db devel library.
[OK] variable style is used consistently
[OK] not multilingual
[OK] timestamps are kept
[OK] make is python based, so smp_flags not required.
[OK] no scriptlets, no conditional dependencies
[OK] is library code not content
[OK] provides backend for each of the backend subpackages seems to make sense.
[OK] dirs/files owned by main package, except the individual backend 
    files {whose directory is created by the main package}.
[OK] not a web app, shoudln't conflict with other packages.
[OK] python sitelib is correctly included at top of spec.
[OK] eggs are build
[OK] no files in %{_bindir} and %{_sbindir}.
[OK] %install setup.py install -O1 --skip-build. as requested for python packages.
=====
[? ] license indication matches upstream web site
"Storm is licensed under the [WWW] LGPL 2.1. Contributions must 
    have copyright assigned to Canonical."
- copyright assigned seems to infer additional requirements ?
- "... Lesser General Public License as
# published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2.1 of
# the License, or (at your option) any later version"
    so LGPLv2+ seems correct.
- eg: cache.py has no licence header - should it be requested ?
- tz.py: "PSF License" not sure what that is ?
    not in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing
    
[??] %files: perhaps should own only it's python-storm dir and below,
    according to:
    http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python
    %{python_sitelib}/modulename/*.py
 
[??] python eggs: do we need to do anything with them ?

[??] are/should the unit tests be run as part of the package build ?
    upstream suggests these as important, but is that something fedora packages
usually do ?
    
[??] %files: %exclude %{python_sitelib}/storm/cextensions.c  
    is this the accepted way to do this ?
    
[ !] the main package includes the same files that are in the 3 backend sub packages

[ !] description missed a 't' in 'erm maintainability'.

[??] no time yet to test built package installation functionality aka:
"- SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
A package should not segfault instead of running, for example."

Michel: pretty close, just a fwe minor tweaks, I think.

-- 
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.