[Bug 510097] Review Request: python-urwid - console user interface for python

Wed Aug 5 22:42:10 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=510097

--- Comment #15 from Christoph Wickert <fedora at christoph-wickert.de>  2009-08-05 18:42:09 EDT ---
REVIEW for b673626cecf9bc79d35953312cc9a304 
python-urwid-0.9.8.4-3.fc11.src.rpm
28f918c66887d4e470ae0c3535579ad7

OK - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/python-urwid-*
python-urwid.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/urwid/str_util.so 0775
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.

This warning is bogus. It only happens when the package is build in mock, but
not when it was built locally or in koji. Not sure if it's a mock or rpmlint
issue.
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 and meets the
Licensing Guidelines: LGPLv2+
OK - MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual
license.
N/A - MUST: The license file from the source package is included in %doc: no
license included in source
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 match the upstream source by
MD5 28f918c66887d4e470ae0c3535579ad7
OK - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on
x86_64
OK - MUST: No ExcludeArch.
OK - MUST: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
N/A - MUST: The spec file handles locales properly with the %find_lang macro:
no locales
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.
FAIL - MUST: The package owns all directories that it creates:
%{python_sitearch}/urwid/ is not owned
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly. Every %files section includes
a %defattr(...) line.
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 packages 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:
TBD - 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.
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.

Other items:
OK - SourceURL is valid
OK - RPM_OPT_FLAGS honored

Issues: 
The package doesn't own %{python_sitearch}/urwid/ and therefor this dir will be
left behind if the package is uninstalled. So change
  %{python_sitearch}/urwid/*
to 
  %{python_sitearch}/urwid/

Timestamps don't match. Please download the source tarball again and keep the
timestamp, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps

To get rid of the bogus rpmlint warning we need to force permissions of
str_util.so in the spec with %attr. This can be done with
  %attr(644,root,root) %{python_sitearch}/urwid/*.so

str_util.so is already covered by %{python_sitearch}/urwid/ and we must not
list the file twice. So we need to change the files section a little:
  dir %{python_sitearch}/urwid/    <-- this only owns the dir but no files
  %{python_sitearch}/urwid/*.py*
  %attrib 0644 %{python_sitearch}/urwid/py*

One last tip: Please use
%{python_sitearch}/*.egg-info/
instead of
%{python_sitearch}/*.egg-info
With the dash at the end a person who looks at the spec can see that
urwid-0.9.8.4-py2.6.egg-info is a directory and not a file.

Konstantinos, please apply the fixes and then I will approve the package.

Rangeen, would you like to co-maintain this package with Konstantinos?
Konstantinos can help you with wicd in turn. This is useful is one of you is on
holidays or has not enough time to look after the 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.