[Bug 495357] Review Request: python-twill - Simple scripting language for Web browsing

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Apr 13 15:26:51 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=495357


Till Maas <opensource at till.name> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |opensource at till.name
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+




--- Comment #4 from Till Maas <opensource at till.name>  2009-04-13 11:26:51 EDT ---
[GOOD ENOUGH] rpmlint output:
python-twill.noarch: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/twill-fork 0775
It seems that the umask of the user building the rpm affects the permissions
of the files inside the rpm. This is not nice imho.

[OK] Spec in %{name}.spec format

[OK] license allowed: MIT
[OK] license matches shortname in License: tag
[OK] license in tarball and included in %doc: LICENSE.txt

[OK] package is code or permissive content:

{OK} patches sent to upstream and commented

[OK] Source0 is a working URL
{N/A} Sourceforge URL is Source0:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
<GOOD ENOUGH> SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}
It is nicer to have future patches in the form:
%{name}-%{version}-$SUFFIX.patch
and to use -b .$SUFFIX in the according %patchX command to make rediffing
easier.

[OK] Source0 matches Upstream:
c362307616696f4838e9456c42b70fdc  twill-0.9.tar.gz

[OK] Package builds on all platforms:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1294675
[N/A] ExcludeArch bugs are filed and commented:
[OK] BuildRequires are complete (mock builds)
(OK) No file dependencies outside of /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin /usr/sbin 

[N/A] %find_lang used for locales

[N/A] Every (sub)package containing libraries runs ldconfig
[N/A] .h (header) files are in -devel subpackage
[N/A] .a (static libraries) are in -static subpackage
[N/A] contains .pc (pkgconfig) files and has Requires: pkgconfig
(N/A) .pc files are in -devel subpackage
[N/A] contains .so.X(.Y) files and .so is in -devel
[N/A] -devel subpackage has Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
[N/A] .la files (libtool) are not included


[N/A] Has GUI and includes %{name}.desktop
[N/A] Follows desktop entry spec
[N/A] Valid .desktop Name
[N/A] Valid .desktop GenericName
[N/A] Valid .desktop Categories
[N/A] Valid .desktop StartupNotify
[N/A] .desktop file installed with desktop-file-install in %install

[OK] Prefix: /usr not used (not relocatable)

[OK] Owns all created directories
[OK] no duplicates in %files
[OK] %defattr(-,root,root,-) is in every %files section
[OK] Does not own files or dirs from other packages
[OK] included filenames are in UTF-8

[OK] %clean is rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT 
[OK] %install starts with rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT 

[OK] Consistent macro usage

[OK] large documentation is -doc subpackage
[OK] %doc does not affect runtime

{OK} no pre-built binaries (.a, .so*, executable)

{OK} well known BuildRoot
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root
{OK} PreReq not used
{N/A} RPM_OPT_FLAGS honoured
{N/A} Useful debuginfo generated
{OK} no duplication of system libraries
{N/A} no rpath
{N/A} Timestamps preserved with cp and install
{N/A} Uses parallel make (%{?_smp_mflags})
{OK} Requires(pre,post) style notation not used
{OK} only writes to tmp /var/tmp $TMPDIR %{_tmppath} %{_builddir} (and
%{buildroot} on %install and %clean)
{OK} no Conflicts
{OK} nothing installed in /srv
{OK} Changelog in allowed format
{OK} does not use Scriptlets
<OK> Architecture independent packages have: BuildArch: noarch
<OK> Sane Provides: and Requires:

{OK} Follows Naming Guidelines
Python 

{OK} Has BuildRequires: python - via BR: python-setuptools or python-devel
{OK} Defines and uses %{python_sitelib}:
%{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print get_python_lib()")}
{N/A} Defines and uses %{python_sitearch}:
%{!?python_sitearch: %global python_sitearch %(%{__python} -c "from
%distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print get_python_lib(1)")}

{GOOD ENOUGH} Has BuildRequires: python-setuptools-devel
Seems not to be needed. Only easy_install seems to be in the -devel package.
Not sure, why the Guidelines say it should be there.

[OK] Python eggs must be built from source. They cannot simply drop an egg from
upstream into the proper directory.
[OK] Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[OK] If egg-info files are generated by the modules build scripts they must be
included in the package.
[N/A] When building a compat package, it must install using easy_install -m so
it won't conflict with the main package.
[N/A] When building multiple versions (for a compat package) one of the
packages must contain a default version that is usable via "import MODULE" with
no prior setup.
(OK) A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info. 

{NOT OK} Egg install:
%install
%{__python} setup.py install --skip-build --root $RPM_BUILD_ROOT 
The "--single-version-externally-managed" is not needed anymore:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python/Eggs#Providing_Eggs_using_Setuptools

There are only minor issues or issues that do not affect rpms building within
the Fedora buildsystem:

Please change the build to not let the umask of the user building the rpm
affect the final rpm. I am not sure, whether this is a default bad beheaviour
of the  python build system or not.

Please consider adding -b .fork to the %patch0 to make rediffing easier and
plase use the package name in the patch in the future.


Please remove the uneeded argument in %install before importing this package
into Fedora.

APPROVED

-- 
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.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list