[Bug 199029] Review Request: jokosher

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Mar 5 20:30:42 UTC 2007


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: jokosher


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199029





------- Additional Comments From toshio at tiki-lounge.com  2007-03-05 15:30 EST -------
(In reply to comment #60)
> The fixes in previous comments have either been applied upstream or are no
> longer relevant. I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. The build now runs
> from the setup.py file. The srpms are at the URI you indicated. I am building
> pre-release packages from svn in readiness for 0.9 final which is due in a few
> weeks.
> 
There were some fixes to the spec file that have been lost as well.

> Good to know it is building okay for you in x86_64. I'm still concerned about
> David's issue however - any thoughts? What needs to happen now to get this
accepted?

I've found David's issue and will attach a patch that you can take upstream.  As
for getting this in, I don't have time for a complete review but I do have a few
comments.  Maybe after you fix these and apply the patch, David can continue to
do the review::

* Cosmetic: The tarball you've created is really a .tar file, not a .tar.gz. 
Rpm knows how to handle it, however, and also compresses its payload so it's not
strictly necessary to fix this.  It would be nice to be accurate when a human
extracts the source rpm and tries to look at the sources, though.  So having
jokosher-0.9.tar or actually gzipping the tarball would be appropriate :-)

* A recent addition to the Packaging Guidelines is that for packaging snapshots
you need to show how to recreate the snapshot either in a script that you
include as another Source line or in a comment.  ie::
  # This tarball is a snapshot.  You can recreate it by doing:
  # svn co -r 321 http://svn.jokosher.org/trunk jokosher-0.9
  # tar -czvf jokosher-20070225.snap.tar.gz  jokosher-0.9

This allows reviewers to easily check that the sources are coming from upstream.

* The BuildArch: noarch is missing from the spec file

* You aren't cleaning the buildroot prior to installing (rpmlint warns about this)

* You aren't installing the omf file and registering with scrollkeeper within
the %post/%postun in the spec file so the help files won't be found.

* You aren't calling update-mime-database or update-desktop-database in the spec
file's %post/%postun so jokosher's mimetype and "mailcap" entries aren't being
created.

* You have a raft of unowned directories.  As an example, changing your file
entries from this:
  %{_datadir}/%{name}/pixmaps/*.png
into this:
  %{_datadir}/%{name}/

will own the jokosher directory and all of its subdirectories and files.

Where you cannot do this because you don't want all of the files inside the
directories you can change from this::
  %exclude %{python_sitelib}/Jokosher/Profiler.py
  %{python_sitelib}/Jokosher/*.py
  %{python_sitelib}/Jokosher/*.pyo
  %{python_sitelib}/Jokosher/*.pyc
into this:
  %exclude %{python_sitelib}/Jokosher/Profiler.py
  %dir %{python_sitelib}/Jokosher
  %{python_sitelib}/Jokosher/*.py
  %{python_sitelib}/Jokosher/*.pyo
  %{python_sitelib}/Jokosher/*.pyc

* It looks like you've got the jokosher help in three places:
/usr/share/gnome/help/jokosher, /usr/share/doc/jokosher-0.9/userguide, and
/usr/share/doc/jokosher-0.9/jokosher

It probably only neds to be in /usr/share/gnome/help/

* You need to use the %find_lang macro to include the *.mo files, not just
include them in the %files section.  The way you've currently got it setup,
people won't be able to specify which languages they're interested in when they
install this.

* David's error is coming from the section of setup.py dealing with installing
omf files.  However, the whole handling of omf files has issues.  Attaching a patch.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list