[Bug 515752] Review Request: python-soaplib - python library for creating SOAP services

Sat Oct 31 01:07:45 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=515752

--- Comment #10 from LINBIT <partner at linbit.com>  2009-10-30 21:07:44 EDT ---
And here's the big review along the Review Guidelines:

    * MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be
posted in the review.

OK. See comment #9.

    * MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines .

See comment #7. May drop svn rev from release tag, otherwise OK.

    * MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in
the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.

OK (Package is named "python-soaplib", spec file is named
"python-soaplib.spec")

    * MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .

See comment #8.

    * MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license
and meet the Licensing Guidelines .

OK. Package is licensed with LGPL2 which is Fedora approved.

    * MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the
actual license.

OK (Package is tagged "License: LGPLv2+", contains LGPL 2.1 license text
with "any later version" clause)

    * 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.

OK (Package included file named LICENSE, file contains license, file
listed in %doc)

    * MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.

OK

    * MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.

OK

    * 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.

OK with a minor suggestion for improvement. As it
appears that upstream has not released any tarballs and the preferred
method of getting the upstream module seems to be fetching from SVN,
spec should follow the guideline outlined in
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Using_Revision_Control
(i.e. state the svn and tar commands required to build the tarball).

    * MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary
rpms on at least one primary architecture.

OK. Tested 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. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a
bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not
compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed
in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line.

N/A. Package does not compile any object code.

    * MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires,
except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the
Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional.
Apply common sense.

OK. Package lists python-devel and python-setuptools in BuildRequires.
Minor note: package does not seem to generate Python bindings, so the
Python headers are not required to be present for building the package.
The spec is however in line with the requirements in
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python in this regard. As such
the BuildRequires entry is superfluous but compliant.

    * MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by
using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
forbidden.

N/A. Package does not use localization.

    * 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: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.

OK.

    * 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. Without this,
use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker.

N/A. Package is not relocatable.

    * 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.

NOK. Package installs files into %{python_sitelib}, which is owned by
python, yet python is not listed in the Requires list. pytz is, and this
creates a transitive dependency on python, but this seems ugly. Package
should include python in Requires list.

The "tests" subdirectory in %{python_sitelib} is probably not meant to
be installed and should be %exclude'd.

Finally, package should list %dir %{python_sitelib}/soaplib explicitly
as suggested in
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#System_Architecture.

    * MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the
spec file's %files listings.

OK.

    * 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.

OK. Permissions set properly, %defattr is used as recommended
(-,root,root,-).

    * MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm
-rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).

OK. %clean section contains "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT".

    * MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.

OK.

    * MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content.

OK (code)

    * MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is
not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [19]

N/A.

    * 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.

OK.

    * 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' (for directory ownership and usability).

N/A. Package does not include .pc files.

    * 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}

N/A.

    * MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these
must be removed in the spec if they are built.

OK.

    * 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. If you feel that your
packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a
comment in the spec file with your explanation.

N/A. Package is not a GUI app.

    * MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by
other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be
installed should own the files or directories that other packages may
rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should
ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the
filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to
own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present
that at package review time.

OK.

    * MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).

OK. Package runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.

    * MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

OK.

-- 
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.