[Bug 427706] Review Request: python-urwid - console user interface 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-urwid - console user interface for python


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427706





------- Additional Comments From davidf at sjsoft.com  2008-03-26 18:53 EST -------
Doing my own review of this as part of my sponsorship campaign...

Package Review
==============

Key:
 - = N/A
 x = Check
 ! = Problem
 ? = Not evaluated

Note: Shouldn't this be a BuildArch: noarch package? - it doesn't seem to
compile anything and the python should be cross-platform...

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
 [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
Suggestion: change Summary "Console user interface for python" to "Console user
interface library for python" for clarity
 [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec.
 [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
     Tested on: FC8/i386
 [!] Rpmlint output:
source RPM: empty
binary RPM: 
python-urwid.i386: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/urwid/canvas.py 0644
python-urwid.i386: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/urwid/graphics.py 0644
python-urwid.i386: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/urwid/old_str_util.py 0644
python-urwid.i386: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/urwid/font.py 0644
python-urwid.i386: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/urwid/raw_display.py 0644
python-urwid.i386: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/urwid/web_display.py 0644
python-urwid.i386: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/urwid/html_fragment.py 0644
python-urwid.i386: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/urwid/listbox.py 0644
python-urwid.i386: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/urwid/widget.py 0644
python-urwid.i386: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/urwid/escape.py 0644
python-urwid.i386: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/urwid/util.py 0644
python-urwid.i386: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/urwid/__init__.py 0644
python-urwid.i386: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/urwid/curses_display.py 0644

This is basically because the Python modules contain a #!/usr/bin/python shebang.

 [x] Package is not relocatable.
 [x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) )
 [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     License type: LGPLv2+
 [x] 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 is included in %doc.
 [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
 [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
     SHA1SUM of tar.gz: 0a0b6e716ff6794900475463a0aaf8a9b4458ca0
 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
 [!] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are
listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.

Are you sure this should be BuildRequires ncurses, not BuildRequires
ncurses-devel? I can't even get rpmbuild to run without ncurses (even Python
seems to require it). But building without ncurses-devel seems to run fine, so
not sure anything is needed here...

 [-] The spec file handles locales properly.
 [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
 [x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
 [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
 [?] Permissions on files are set properly.
See the above issue with shebangs from rpmlint
 [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
 [x] Package consistently uses macros.
 [x] Package contains code, or permissible content.
 [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
 [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
 [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
 [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.                    
 [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
 [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
 [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 [x] All filenames present are valid UTF-8

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
 [x] Latest version is packaged.
 [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
 [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
 [?] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Not tested...
 [?] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
     Tested on: i386
 [x] Package functions as described.
 [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
 [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
 [-] File based requires are sane.

Hope the above is helpful...

-- 
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.