Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: pyicu - Python extension wrapping IBM's ICU C++ libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688421
Summary: Review Request: pyicu - Python extension wrapping IBM's ICU C++ libraries Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: linux.n.pkd@gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://prabindatta.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/pyicu.spec SRPM URL: http://prabindatta.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/pyicu-1.1-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: PyICu is Python extension wrapping IBM's International Components for Unicode C++ library (ICU). ICU is a mature, widely used set of C/C++ and Java libraries providing Unicode and Globalization support for software applications. ICU is widely portable and gives applications the same results on all platforms and between C/C++ and Javasoftware.
Koji Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2918686
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=688421
PRABIN KUMAR DATTA linux.n.pkd@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
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=688421
--- Comment #1 from PRABIN KUMAR DATTA linux.n.pkd@gmail.com 2011-03-21 10:41:20 EDT --- Still Need Sponsor.
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=688421
--- Comment #2 from PRABIN KUMAR DATTA linux.n.pkd@gmail.com 2011-04-20 15:00:57 EDT --- NEED A SPONSOR.
This package is a dependency package for aardtool which I will submit for review request once this package will be submitted
List of My Packages waiting for review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=687875 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688421 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=692131 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=698362
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=688421
David Nalley david@gnsa.us changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |david@gnsa.us
--- Comment #3 from David Nalley david@gnsa.us 2011-05-07 22:33:40 EDT --- Since this is a prereq for aardict, I figured we'd get started here given some of the issues that are being debated about now.
Also, your above SPEC/SRPM links don't work.
Missing a requires for gcc-c++ Project url is not pypi.python.org - a quick google shows it to be http://pyicu.osafoundation.org/
Why are you removing tests? Why aren't you running those tests?
CHANGES and CREDITS should be %doc as well.
This package has no requires - are you sure? It may not -
[OK] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package [ke4qqq@nalleyx200 SPECS]$ rpmlint ./PyICU.spec ../SRPMS/PyICU-1.1-1.fc14.src.rpm ../RPMS/x86_64/PyICU-* 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[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} [...] [ ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines [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] 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 [OK] 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. [ke4qqq@nalleyx200 SOURCES]$ md5sum PyICU-1.1.tar.gz* 70cbb5b43c3e6939b74c3f1b27e47aae PyICU-1.1.tar.gz 70cbb5b43c3e6939b74c3f1b27e47aae PyICU-1.1.tar.gz.1
[FIX] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture See the missing buildrequire
[NA] 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 [FIX] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
Missing gcc-c++
[NA] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden [NA] 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. [NA] 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] 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. [OK] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [OK] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [OK] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [OK] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [OK] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [NA] 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). [OK] 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. [NA] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [NA] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [NA] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [NA] 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. [NA] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [NA] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [NA] 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: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [OK] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
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=688421
--- Comment #4 from PRABIN KUMAR DATTA linux.n.pkd@gmail.com 2011-05-08 14:56:01 EDT ---
This package has no requires - are you sure? It may not -
1. It is working fine in my case. Tested using aarddict and aardtool. 2. Used https://launchpadlibrarian.net/70790028/pyicu_1.1-1.diff.gz as a reference
* Updated rest part:
Spec file: http://prabindatta.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/PyICU.spec SRPMS file: http://prabindatta.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/PyICU-1.1-2.fc14.src.rpm
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=688421
David Nalley david@gnsa.us changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |david@gnsa.us 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=688421
David Nalley david@gnsa.us changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from David Nalley david@gnsa.us 2011-05-08 15:34:57 EDT --- OK - you fixed the remaining blockers.
APPROVED
I'll sponsor you in FAS in just a few moments. Please remove FE-NEEDSPONSOR from your other packages.
Thanks!
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=688421
--- Comment #6 from PRABIN KUMAR DATTA linux.n.pkd@gmail.com 2011-05-08 17:25:25 EDT ---
OK - you fixed the remaining blockers. APPROVED I'll sponsor you in FAS in just a few moments.
Thank You!
Please remove FE-NEEDSPONSOR from your other packages.
Done!
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=688421
--- Comment #7 from PRABIN KUMAR DATTA linux.n.pkd@gmail.com 2011-05-10 16:10:53 EDT --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: pyicu Short Description: Python extension wrapping IBM's ICU C++ libraries Owners: prabindatta Branches: f14 f15 el6 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=688421
PRABIN KUMAR DATTA linux.n.pkd@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
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=688421
--- Comment #8 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2011-05-12 12:38:11 EDT --- 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=688421
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=688421
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-05-16 11:05:18 EDT --- pyicu-1.1-2.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pyicu-1.1-2.fc15
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=688421
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-05-16 11:29:28 EDT --- pyicu-1.1-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pyicu-1.1-2.el6
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=688421
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-05-16 17:04:17 EDT --- pyicu-1.1-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing 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=688421
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-05-16 23:16:43 EDT --- pyicu-1.1-2.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pyicu-1.1-2.fc14
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=688421
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-05-26 17:48:15 EDT --- pyicu-1.1-2.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 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=688421
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |pyicu-1.1-2.fc15 Resolution| |ERRATA Last Closed| |2011-05-26 17:48:20
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=688421
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-05-26 17:48:53 EDT --- pyicu-1.1-2.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=688421
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|pyicu-1.1-2.fc15 |pyicu-1.1-2.fc14
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=688421
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-06-02 15:02:50 EDT --- pyicu-1.1-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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=688421
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|pyicu-1.1-2.fc14 |pyicu-1.1-2.el6
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org