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=770765 Spencer Jackson <spencerandrewjackson(a)yahoo.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |spencerandrewjackson@yahoo. | |com --- Comment #1 from Spencer Jackson <spencerandrewjackson(a)yahoo.com&gt; 2011-12-29 23:44:33 EST --- I'm not able to give you a formal review, but I was able to look over your package and go over the checklist. I hope this helps! MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review. [makerpm@khezef rpmbuild]$ rpmlint SPECS/python3-modgrammar.spec RPMS/noarch/python3-modgrammar-0.8-2.fc16.noarch.rpm SRPMS/python3-modgrammar-0.8-2.fc16.src.rpm python3-modgrammar python3-modgrammar.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parsers -> parser, parses, parers python3-modgrammar.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parsers -> parser, parses, parers python3-modgrammar.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parsers -> parser, parses, parers 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . OK. Name contains only ASCII characters. Name 'modgrammar' matches with upstream project, python3 prefix correctly attached. Specfile correctly named. Version is numeric, so version and release tags are trivially correct. There does exist a doc subdirectory full of rst files in the source tarball. Consider packaging it? There's ~70K of unprocessed documentation so maybe consider a doc subpackage? MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. OK. MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . FIXME. BSD is a valid license. No external components, or included 3rd party components. Spec is legible. Built successfully on x86_64. Doesn't install anything outside of %{python3_sitelib}, thus adhering to the LHS. Tags used correctly. No Requires are used. egg-info is installed as documentation. Google indicates this folder is used for pkg_resources? It probably shouldn't be documentation... http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Eggs has an example of it... Also looks like you have a few unowned directories. %{python3_sitelib}/modgrammar-0.8-py3.2.egg-info/, %{python3_sitelib}/modgrammar/__pycache__/, and %{python3_sitelib}/modgrammar/ don't belong to your package, and they should. Maybe use a wildcard in %{python3_sitelib} to grab everything? The patch should have a comment describing its upstream status. Test suite should be invoked in a %check section. MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . FIXME. BSD is an approved license. Source package does not contain the text of the license. Contact upstream and ask for this to be corrected. Note that the license is not contained in the source files. MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. Unknown. setup.py says 'BSD' but that doesn't tell us what kind of BSD... 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. It doesn't. 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. Sources and upstream source have md5sum 74c8db3b4276bb49a2c11934ada33762. MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. OK. Built on x86_64 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. NA I do not have access to any other architectures. But it's noarch, so that should be alright. 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. OK. MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. OK. No locales 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. OK. No shared libraries. 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. OK. Not designed to be 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. FIXME. See above. MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations) OK. MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. OK. MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. OK. MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. OK. 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). OPTIONAL. See above. 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. FIXME: See above. MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK. MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. OK. 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. OK. MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} OK. 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. OK. 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: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. OK. 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. Please do this. SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. Should be fine. There aren't any available translations. SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. FIXME. Mock fails. Looking at the logs, I see the following output as it died: Processing files: python3-modgrammar-0.8-2.fc16.noarch error: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python3-modgrammar-0.8-2.fc16.x86_64/usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/modgrammar/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-32.pyc error: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python3-modgrammar-0.8-2.fc16.x86_64/usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/modgrammar/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-32.pyo RPM build errors: error: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python3-modgrammar-0.8-2.fc16.x86_64/usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/modgrammar/__pycache__/extras.cpython-32.pyc error: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python3-modgrammar-0.8-2.fc16.x86_64/usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/modgrammar/__pycache__/extras.cpython-32.pyo error: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python3-modgrammar-0.8-2.fc16.x86_64/usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/modgrammar/__pycache__/util.cpython-32.pyc error: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python3-modgrammar-0.8-2.fc16.x86_64/usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/modgrammar/__pycache__/util.cpython-32.pyo File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python3-modgrammar-0.8-2.fc16.x86_64/usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/modgrammar/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-32.pyc File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python3-modgrammar-0.8-2.fc16.x86_64/usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/modgrammar/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-32.pyo File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python3-modgrammar-0.8-2.fc16.x86_64/usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/modgrammar/__pycache__/extras.cpython-32.pyc File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python3-modgrammar-0.8-2.fc16.x86_64/usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/modgrammar/__pycache__/extras.cpython-32.pyo File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python3-modgrammar-0.8-2.fc16.x86_64/usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/modgrammar/__pycache__/util.cpython-32.pyc File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python3-modgrammar-0.8-2.fc16.x86_64/usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/modgrammar/__pycache__/util.cpython-32.pyo Child returncode was: 1 EXCEPTION: Command failed. See logs for output. That's kind of strange. I don't understand why Python doesn't bytecompile in mock, and ONLY in mock... I'm looking in to it... It shouldn't be this kind of showstopper if you glob the install paths though, as per above. SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. It's noarch. SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. The literal HelloWorld in the tutorial works. SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. OK. No scriptlets. SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. OK. No subpackages. 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. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. OK. No pkgconfig 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. OK. No file dependencies. SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. OK. I don't think it makes sense for a python module to have man page. -- 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.

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=770765 --- Comment #3 from Spencer Jackson <spencerandrewjackson(a)yahoo.com&gt; 2011-12-30 12:10:24 EST --- I stand corrected. Add this: %global __python %{__python3} to your spec. That ought to resolve the bytecode issue. -- 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.

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=770765 --- Comment #5 from Spencer Jackson <spencerandrewjackson(a)yahoo.com&gt; 2012-01-19 14:45:56 EST --- Sorry Jiri, I haven't been sponsored yet either, so I can't do a formal review. -- 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.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=770765 --- Comment #7 from Pavel Simerda <psimerda(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Thank you, Jason. Several days ago I tried once again using this library but it doesn't have any real error handling which makes it pretty unusable for real usecases. It would probably need some debugging code to be actually usable. I'm not sure if I can at these in the near future but I would appreciate any help if someone other is interested in this particular package. My interest in this package pretty much depends on its real world usability. Cheers, Pavel -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=770765 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whiteboard| |NotReady -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=u4AjXtcvq3&a=cc_unsubscribe

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=770765 James Hogarth <james.hogarth(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Blocks| |201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Whiteboard|NotReady | Flags|needinfo?(psimerda(a)redhat.c | |om) | Last Closed| |2015-12-11 11:14:40 --- Comment #10 from James Hogarth <james.hogarth(a)gmail.com&gt; --- It's been over a week with no response from the requestor to the NeedsInfo flag. Closing as per policy. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component