[Bug 492613] Review Request: canto - Atom/RSS feed reader based on ncurses

Mon Apr 13 09:39:11 UTC 2009

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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492613

--- Comment #1 from Christoph Wickert <fedora at christoph-wickert.de>  2009-04-13 05:39:11 EDT ---
REVIEW FOR 79ed4e70aaf0701cab00fca77695c5f0  canto-0.6.8-1.fc10.src.rpm

FAIL - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted
in the review:
$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/canto-*
canto.i386: E: non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/canto/widecurse.so 0775
canto.i386: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/canto/canto_html.py 0644
canto.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 7, tab: line 3)
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings.
-> widecurse.so should be 0644
-> can be ignored
-> Ether use tabs _or_ spaces (cosmetics)

OK - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
OK - MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
OK - MUST: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license (GPLV2) and
meets the Licensing Guidelines.
FAIL - MUST: The License field in the package spec file does not match the
actual license. License tag is GPLv2+, but canto/canto.py reads:
#   This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
#   it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as 
#   published by the Free Software Foundation.
So this is GPlv2 (only).
OK - MUST: The license file from the source package is included in %doc.
OK - MUST: The spec file is in American English.
OK - MUST: The spec file for the package is legible.
OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package matche the upstream source by
MD5 1fbfbff9f7037900fba60322d0b85eab
OK - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on
i386
N/A - 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.
FAIL - MUST: Not all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires: Missing
BuildRequires: python-setuptools-devel for the egg info, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python/Eggs#Providing_Eggs_using_Setuptools
N/A - MUST: The spec file handles locales properly with the %find_lang macro.
N/A - MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
N/A - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package.
OK - MUST: The package owns all directories that it creates.
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
FAIL - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly. Every %files section
includes a %defattr(...) line: widecurse.so is 0775
OK - MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
OK - MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
OK - MUST: The package contains code, or permissable content.
N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage.
OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application.
N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
N/A - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires:
pkgconfig'.
N/A - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
N/A - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives.
N/A - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section.
OK - MUST: The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
OK - MUST: At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot}.
OK - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

SHOULD Items:
N/A - 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.
N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
OK - SHOULD: The the package builds in mock.
OK - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
OK - SHOULD: The package functions as described.
N/A - SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is
vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
N/A - SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase,
and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel
pkg.
N/A - SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin,
/sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the
file instead of the file itself.

Issues:
- Fix rpmlint
- Fix license tag
- Missing BuildRequires: python-setuptools-devel
- Missing Requires: python-chardet

During build on F11 I see:
+ /usr/lib/rpm/brp-python-bytecompile
Compiling
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/canto-0.6.8-1.fc11.i386/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/canto/const.py
...
Sorry: TypeError: ('compile() expected string without null bytes',)
...
Do you have an idea what is causing this? I don't think that it's related to
the package itself since I don't see this error on F10.

-- 
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.