[Bug 429882] Review Request: python-Levenshtein - Levenshtein distance measurement library in C

Wed Mar 26 14:17:39 UTC 2008

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-Levenshtein - Levenshtein distance measurement library in C

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429882

------- Additional Comments From davidf at sjsoft.com  2008-03-26 10:17 EST -------
(In reply to comment #4)
> Spec URL:
>
http://translate.sourceforge.net/releases/testing/fedora/python-Levenshtein-0.10.1-4.spec
> SRPM URL:
>
http://translate.sourceforge.net/releases/testing/fedora/python-Levenshtein-0.10.1-4.fc8.src.rpm
> 
> New SRPM and SPEC to address the last issue of using Source1 instead of Patch.
> 
> All the issues noted have now been fixed.

Ah, a package I can try and review in search of Sponsorship :-)

Note: The URL pointing to the package home
(http://trific.ath.cx/python/levenshtein/) no longer exists... in fact all URLs
relating to the project now redirect to http://trific.ath.cx - it seems that
he's simply redone his website in February and ditched all this stuff. Suggest
you contact the author to resolve...

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

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

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
 [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
 [-] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec.
  (this is OK as presumably your URL download is just versioned and will be
adjusted)
 [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: python-Levenshtein.src:26: E: use-of-RPM_SOURCE_DIR
binary RPM: empty

You should rather use %SOURCE1 to refer to the location of the source file.
Also, this source file should be pointed to a URL from whence it can be
downloaded. It may be good to make a package for genextdoc, and then you can
just say BuildRequires and run it normally

 [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: GPLv2+
 [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.
 [?] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
This is hard to check because the original website has disappeared, and the spec
URL provided points to the translate package download copy. Either taking over
maintenance of the project, or getting the author to resurrect it would solve this.
I did check against versions from the web archive successfully:
     SHA1SUM of tar.bz2:d630141e003f47a43e0f8eacdcbf593bf9d15ed6
http://web.archive.org/web/20070305015113/trific.ath.cx/Ftp/python/levenshtein/python-Levenshtein-0.10.1.tar.bz2
Also as noted above, genextdoc.py should be placed on a public URL
Also, it would be good to use %{version} for the version in the source URL
 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
 [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are
listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [-] 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.
 [x] Permissions on files are set properly.
 [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.
     Tested on: devel/x86_64
 [?] 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.

-- 
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.