Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226330
Summary: Merge Review: pychecker Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: nobody@fedoraproject.org QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com CC: mitr@redhat.com
Fedora Merge Review: pychecker
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/pychecker/ Initial Owner: mitr@redhat.com
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=226330
Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |jussi.lehtola@iki.fi AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jussi.lehtola@iki.fi Flag| |fedora-review?
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=226330
--- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2009-04-11 06:19:07 EDT --- - Drop Requires: python and BuildRequires: python since both of these are redundant (first is automatically picked up and second is a requirement of python-devel).
- Remove CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" from the build phase since this is a noarch package.
**
rpmlint output: pychecker.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot A python source code checking tool. pychecker.noarch: E: tag-not-utf8 %changelog pychecker.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pychecker/Stack.py 0644 pychecker.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pychecker/OP.py 0644 pychecker.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/pychecker-0.8.17/MAINTAINERS pychecker.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pychecker/warn.py 0644 pychecker.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pychecker/printer.py 0644 pychecker.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pychecker/CodeChecks.py 0644 pychecker.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pychecker/Warning.py 0644 pychecker.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pychecker/msgs.py 0644 pychecker.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pychecker/utils.py 0644 pychecker.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pychecker/Config.py 0644 pychecker.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pychecker/checker.py 0644 pychecker.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pychecker/function.py 0644 pychecker.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pychecker/python.py 0644 pychecker.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot A python source code checking tool. pychecker.src: E: tag-not-utf8 %changelog pychecker.src: E: non-utf8-spec-file /tmp/rpmlint.pychecker-0.8.17-8.fc10.src.rpm.t9ghWq/pychecker.spec 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 15 errors, 3 warnings.
- Fix the above. You can get rid of the non-executable script errors by removing the shebang with sed in the setup phase, e.g. sed -i -e '1d' pychecker/checker.py
- Maybe add "-O1 --skip-build" to the install argument of setup.py?
MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. OK MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK - Source code contains no license heders, please ask upstream to add them.
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. OK MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. OK MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. OK MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK MUST: Clean section exists. OK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. OK MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. OK MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. OK MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. OK MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so 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. OK MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. OK MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. OK MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK
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=226330
Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?
--- Comment #2 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2009-06-14 12:11:53 EDT --- ping vcrhonek
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=226330
Vitezslav Crhonek vcrhonek@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo? |
--- Comment #3 from Vitezslav Crhonek vcrhonek@redhat.com 2009-06-15 10:26:54 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1)
- Drop
Requires: python and BuildRequires: python since both of these are redundant (first is automatically picked up and second is a requirement of python-devel).
Fixed.
- Remove
CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" from the build phase since this is a noarch package.
Fixed.
**
rpmlint output: pychecker.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot A python source code checking tool. pychecker.noarch: E: tag-not-utf8 %changelog pychecker.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pychecker/Stack.py 0644 pychecker.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pychecker/OP.py 0644 pychecker.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/pychecker-0.8.17/MAINTAINERS pychecker.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pychecker/warn.py 0644 pychecker.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pychecker/printer.py 0644 pychecker.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pychecker/CodeChecks.py 0644 pychecker.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pychecker/Warning.py 0644 pychecker.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pychecker/msgs.py 0644 pychecker.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pychecker/utils.py 0644 pychecker.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pychecker/Config.py 0644 pychecker.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pychecker/checker.py 0644 pychecker.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pychecker/function.py 0644 pychecker.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pychecker/python.py 0644 pychecker.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot A python source code checking tool. pychecker.src: E: tag-not-utf8 %changelog pychecker.src: E: non-utf8-spec-file /tmp/rpmlint.pychecker-0.8.17-8.fc10.src.rpm.t9ghWq/pychecker.spec 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 15 errors, 3 warnings.
- Fix the above. You can get rid of the non-executable script errors by
removing the shebang with sed in the setup phase, e.g. sed -i -e '1d' pychecker/checker.py
Fixed.
- Maybe add "-O1 --skip-build" to the install argument of setup.py?
There are problems with '--skip-build'.
MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. OK MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK
- Source code contains no license heders, please ask upstream to add them.
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. OK MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. OK MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. OK MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK MUST: Clean section exists. OK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. OK MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. OK MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. OK MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. OK MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so 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. OK MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. OK MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. OK MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK
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=226330
Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2009-06-15 10:44:39 EDT --- Okay. Everything seems OK, but I can't check the rpmlint warnings since you haven't built the package in rawhide. Those were minor issues anyway.
APPROVED
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org