Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: python-flask - A microframework for Python based on Werkzeug, Jinja 2 and good intentions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=679613
Summary: Review Request: python-flask - A microframework for Python based on Werkzeug, Jinja 2 and good intentions Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: dyoung@mesd.k12.or.us QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://files.mesd.k12.or.us/~dyoung/python-flask/python-flask.spec SRPM URL: http://files.mesd.k12.or.us/~dyoung/python-flask/python-flask-0.6.1-1.fc14.s... Description: A microframework for Python based on Werkzeug, Jinja 2 and good intentions
Flask is called a “microframework” because the idea to keep the core simple but extensible. There is no database abstraction layer, no form validation or anything else where different libraries already exist that can handle that. However Flask knows the concept of extensions that can add this functionality into your application as if it was implemented in Flask itself. There are currently extensions for object relational mappers, form validation, upload handling, various open authentication technologies and more.
Upstream is here: http://flask.pocoo.org/
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=679613
Tim Lauridsen tla@rasmil.dk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
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=679613
Tim Lauridsen tla@rasmil.dk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |tla@rasmil.dk
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=679613
--- Comment #1 from Tim Lauridsen tla@rasmil.dk 2011-02-24 09:18:38 EST --- I will review this 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=679613
Tim Lauridsen tla@rasmil.dk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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=679613
--- Comment #2 from Tim Lauridsen tla@rasmil.dk 2011-02-24 10:08:09 EST ---
Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated
[x] : MUST - Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [x] : MUST - Buildroot is correct (EPEL5 & Fedora < 10) %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) [x] : MUST - Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).(EPEL6 & Fedora < 13) [-] : MUST - %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x] : MUST - Each %files section contains %defattr [x] : MUST - Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [-] : MUST - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x] : MUST - Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x] : MUST - Package run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) and the beginning of %install. [-] : MUST - ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x] : MUST - Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x] : MUST - Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x] : MUST - Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [-] : MUST - No %config files under /usr. [-] : MUST - Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. (EPEL5) [!] : MUST - Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint python-flask-0.6.1-1.fc16.src.rpm
================================================================================ python-flask.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) microframework -> micro framework, micro-framework, framework python-flask.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US microframework -> micro framework, micro-framework, framework 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
================================================================================
rpmlint python-flask-doc-0.6.1-1.fc16.noarch.rpm
================================================================================ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
================================================================================
rpmlint python-flask-0.6.1-1.fc16.noarch.rpm
================================================================================ python-flask.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) microframework -> micro framework, micro-framework, framework python-flask.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US microframework -> micro framework, micro-framework, framework 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
================================================================================
[-] : MUST - Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x] : MUST - Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. MD5SUM this package : 7af56e33fb6a35db2818c20e604c8698 MD5SUM upstream package : 7af56e33fb6a35db2818c20e604c8698 [x] : MUST - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-] : MUST - Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present. [x] : MUST - Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] : MUST - Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded directory names. [x] : MUST - Package consistently uses macros. [x] : MUST - Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x] : MUST - Requires correct, justified where necessary. [!] : MUST - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. BuildRequires: python-devel should be python2-devel http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires [-] : MUST - The spec file handles locales properly. [x] : MUST - Changelog in prescribed format. [x] : MUST - License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x] : 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 is included in %doc. [x] : MUST - License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x] : MUST - Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x] : MUST - Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-] : MUST - Compiler flags are appropriate. [-] : MUST - %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x] : MUST - Package must own all directories that it creates. [x] : MUST - Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x] : MUST - Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] : MUST - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] : MUST - Permissions on files are set properly. [-] : MUST - Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install file if it is a GUI application. [x] : MUST - Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] : MUST - Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x] : MUST - File names are valid UTF-8. [x] : MUST - Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x] : MUST - Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x] : MUST - Package contains no bundled libraries. [x] : MUST - Package contains no static executables. [x] : MUST - Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x] : MUST - Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x] : MUST - Package does not genrate any conflict. [x] : MUST - Package does not contains kernel modules. [x] : MUST - Package is not relocatable. [x] : MUST - Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x] : MUST - Package installs properly. [x] : MUST - Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x] : MUST - Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x] : SHOULD - Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x] : SHOULD - Spec use %global instead of %define. [x] : SHOULD - Dist tag is present. [-] : SHOULD - Uses parallel make. [-] : SHOULD - The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x] : SHOULD - SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x] : SHOULD - SourceX is a working URL. [?] : SHOULD - Package functions as described. [x] : SHOULD - Latest version is packaged. [x] : SHOULD - Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] : 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. [!] : SHOULD - Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x] : SHOULD - Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [!] : SHOULD - %check is present and all tests pass. It look like the source have a test suite, so it would be a good idea to add %check %{__python} setup.py test
[?] : SHOULD - Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x] : SHOULD - Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x] : SHOULD - No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x] : SHOULD - Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x] : SHOULD - File based requires are sane. [x] : SHOULD - Man pages included for all executables. [-] : SHOULD - Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
Issues: [!] : MUST - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. BuildRequires: python-devel should be python2-devel http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires [!] : SHOULD - %check is present and all tests pass. It look like the source have a test suite, so it would be a good idea to add %check %{__python} setup.py test
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=679613
--- Comment #3 from Dan Young dyoung@mesd.k12.or.us 2011-02-24 13:48:25 EST --- Thanks for the quick feedback. New spec and SRPM here: http://files.mesd.k12.or.us/~dyoung/python-flask/python-flask.spec http://files.mesd.k12.or.us/~dyoung/python-flask/python-flask-0.6.1-2.fc14.s...
Changes: * Thu Feb 24 2011 Dan Young dyoung@mesd.k12.or.us - 0.6.1-2 - fix rpmlint spelling warning - BR python2-devel rather than python-devel - run test suite in check
Also, I'd appreciate some feedback on how I'm building the docs. Upstream uses Sphinx, which is apparently D/Ling from the web at build time for "intersphinx inventory". My understanding is that koji builds are not allowed network access, nor do we want any external sources anyways. It's not clear to me that these are "sources" in the traditional sense. I'm considering patching out this function, although I frankly don't think I yet fully understand the ramifications of just nuking it entirely or letting it timeout if network access is denied:
http://sphinx.pocoo.org/latest/ext/intersphinx.html https://bitbucket.org/birkenfeld/sphinx/issue/547/timeout-for-remote-intersp...
Any insights you might have here are welcome.
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=679613
Tim Lauridsen tla@rasmil.dk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |a.badger@gmail.com
--- Comment #4 from Tim Lauridsen tla@rasmil.dk 2011-02-25 01:10:55 EST --- Hi Toshio.
Do you have any good advice, how to handle Dan's comment #3 ?
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=679613
Tim Lauridsen tla@rasmil.dk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Tim Lauridsen tla@rasmil.dk 2011-02-25 01:12:01 EST ---
Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated
[x] : MUST - Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [x] : MUST - Buildroot is correct (EPEL5 & Fedora < 10) %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) [x] : MUST - Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).(EPEL6 & Fedora < 13) [-] : MUST - %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x] : MUST - Each %files section contains %defattr [x] : MUST - Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [-] : MUST - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x] : MUST - Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x] : MUST - Package run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) and the beginning of %install. [-] : MUST - ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x] : MUST - Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [-] : MUST - The spec file handles locales properly. [x] : MUST - Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x] : MUST - Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [-] : MUST - No %config files under /usr. [-] : MUST - Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. (EPEL5) [x] : MUST - Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint python-flask-0.6.1-2.fc16.noarch.rpm
================================================================================ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
================================================================================
rpmlint python-flask-0.6.1-2.fc16.src.rpm
================================================================================ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
================================================================================
rpmlint python-flask-doc-0.6.1-2.fc16.noarch.rpm
================================================================================ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
================================================================================
[-] : MUST - Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x] : MUST - Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. MD5SUM this package : 7af56e33fb6a35db2818c20e604c8698 MD5SUM upstream package : 7af56e33fb6a35db2818c20e604c8698 [x] : MUST - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-] : MUST - Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present. [x] : MUST - Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] : MUST - Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded directory names. [x] : MUST - Package consistently uses macros. [x] : MUST - Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x] : MUST - Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x] : MUST - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x] : MUST - Changelog in prescribed format. [x] : MUST - License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x] : 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 is included in %doc. [x] : MUST - License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x] : MUST - Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x] : MUST - Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-] : MUST - Compiler flags are appropriate. [-] : MUST - %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x] : MUST - Package must own all directories that it creates. [x] : MUST - Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x] : MUST - Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] : MUST - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] : MUST - Permissions on files are set properly. [-] : MUST - Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install file if it is a GUI application. [x] : MUST - Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] : MUST - Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x] : MUST - File names are valid UTF-8. [x] : MUST - Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x] : MUST - Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x] : MUST - Package contains no bundled libraries. [x] : MUST - Package contains no static executables. [x] : MUST - Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x] : MUST - Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x] : MUST - Package does not genrate any conflict. [x] : MUST - Package does not contains kernel modules. [x] : MUST - Package is not relocatable. [x] : MUST - Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x] : MUST - Package installs properly. [x] : MUST - Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x] : MUST - Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x] : SHOULD - Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x] : SHOULD - Spec use %global instead of %define. [x] : SHOULD - Dist tag is present. [-] : SHOULD - Uses parallel make. [-] : SHOULD - The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x] : SHOULD - SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x] : SHOULD - SourceX is a working URL. [?] : SHOULD - Package functions as described. [x] : SHOULD - Latest version is packaged. [x] : SHOULD - Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x] : 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. [!] : SHOULD - Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x] : SHOULD - Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x] : SHOULD - %check is present and all tests pass. [?] : SHOULD - Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-] : SHOULD - Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] : SHOULD - No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x] : SHOULD - Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [-] : SHOULD - File based requires are sane. [-] : SHOULD - Man pages included for all executables. [-] : SHOULD - Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
Issues:
None
APPROVED
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=679613
--- Comment #6 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.badger@gmail.com 2011-02-25 10:58:39 EST --- (In reply to comment #3)
Also, I'd appreciate some feedback on how I'm building the docs. Upstream uses Sphinx, which is apparently D/Ling from the web at build time for "intersphinx inventory". My understanding is that koji builds are not allowed network access, nor do we want any external sources anyways. It's not clear to me that these are "sources" in the traditional sense. I'm considering patching out this function, although I frankly don't think I yet fully understand the ramifications of just nuking it entirely or letting it timeout if network access is denied:
intersphinx allows sphinx to create links in documentation between sites. So, for instance, if the documentation you're building references a function from the python stdlib, the sphinx can create a link for that function that points to docs.python.org.
I have a package, python-kitchen, that uses intersphinx and it builds in the build system fine so I think letting that timeout is fine. The only effect should be that the generated documentation won't link to external documents. sphinx should not fail the build just because it can't retrieve the objects.inv file.
If this package doesn't build in koji because f sphinx, let me know and I'll look into it.
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=679613
Dan Young dyoung@mesd.k12.or.us changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #7 from Dan Young dyoung@mesd.k12.or.us 2011-02-25 14:10:38 EST --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-flask Short Description: A micro-framework for Python based on Werkzeug, Jinja 2 and good intentions Owners: dyoung Branches: f14 f15 InitialCC:
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=679613
--- Comment #8 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2011-02-25 19:24:07 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
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=679613
--- Comment #9 from Dan Young dyoung@mesd.k12.or.us 2011-02-28 13:40:21 EST --- Thanks for the feedback on the intersphinx build function, Toshio. In a scratch build, that did in fact just time out as you mentioned. I went ahead and did the final builds exactly as reviewed. Will submit to Bodhi for f14 and f15, then close w/ NEXTRELEASE.
Thanks all.
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=679613
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
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=679613
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-28 13:45:12 EST --- Package python-flask-0.6.1-2.fc15: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 15 updates-testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing python-flask-0.6.1-2.fc15' as soon as you are able to, then reboot. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-flask-0.6.1-2.fc15 then log in and leave karma (feedback).
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=679613
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-28 13:46:37 EST --- Package python-flask-0.6.1-2.fc14: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 14 updates-testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing python-flask-0.6.1-2.fc14' as soon as you are able to, then reboot. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-flask-0.6.1-2.fc14 then log in and leave karma (feedback).
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=679613
Dan Young dyoung@mesd.k12.or.us changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2011-02-28 13:49:18
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=679613
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-03-07 21:28:25 EST --- python-flask-0.6.1-2.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
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=679613
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-03-10 15:51:15 EST --- python-flask-0.6.1-2.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository.
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=679613
Dan Young dyoung@mesd.k12.or.us changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #14 from Dan Young dyoung@mesd.k12.or.us 2011-04-18 13:18:05 EDT --- Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: python-flask New Branches: el6 Owners: dyoung
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=679613
--- Comment #15 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2011-04-18 14:07:58 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org