Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: python26-mysqldb : Interface to MySQL for python26 on EPEL5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=574545
Summary: Review Request: python26-mysqldb : Interface to MySQL for python26 on EPEL5 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: dmalcolm@redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: ---
Spec URL: http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/epel-packaging/python26-mysqldb.spec
SRPM URL: http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/epel-packaging/python26-mysqldb-1.2.3c1-2.e...
Note: this is purely intended for the EPEL5 branch, not for Fedora
Description: This is the python26-mysqldb package from IUS for EL5: http://dl.iuscommunity.org/pub/ius/stable/Redhat/5/SRPMS/python26-mysqldb-1.... http://dl.iuscommunity.org/pub/ius/stable/Redhat/5/SRPMS/repoview/python26-m...
reworked somewhat for import into EPEL5
Diff versus that specfile: http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/epel-packaging/python26-mysqldb-from-1.2.3c...
I used this command to fix the encoding of the specfile: iconv -f ISO-8859-1 -t UTF-8 python26-mysqldb.spec > tmp.spec
The rpmlint output is clean, apart from this warning (due to the dist tag): python26-mysqldb.i386: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.2.3c1-2 1.2.3c1-2.el5
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=574545
Dave Malcolm dmalcolm@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |574506
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=574545
Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |steve.traylen@cern.ch AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |steve.traylen@cern.ch Flag| |fedora-review?
Bug 574545 depends on bug 574506, which changed state.
Bug 574506 Summary: Review Request: python26-distribute - the "Distribute" fork of setuptools for the python26 EPEL5 package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=574506
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |ERRATA
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=574545
Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch 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=574545
--- Comment #1 from Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch 2010-09-28 17:20:16 EDT --- Date: 28th September 2010. Package: python26-mysqldb-1.2.3c1-2.el5.src.rpm. Review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=574545 Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2495183
[QUERY] specfiles match: [PASS] source files match upstream: $ md5sum MySQL-python-1.2.3c1.tar.gz ../SOURCES/MySQL-python-1.2.3c1.tar.gz 310dd856e439d070b59ece6dd7a0734d MySQL-python-1.2.3c1.tar.gz 310dd856e439d070b59ece6dd7a0734d ../SOURCES/MySQL-python-1.2.3c1.tar.gz [FAIL] package meets naming and versioning guidelines. I thing 1.2.3c inicates a 1.2.3 candidate so the release should be a 0.N. However 1.2.3 is released now anyway.
[PASS] spec is properly named, cleanly written, and uses macros consistently. [PASS] dist tag is present. [PASS] build root is correct. [PASS] license field matches the actual license. GPLv2 [PASS] license is open source-compatible. [FAIL] license text included in package. [FAIL] latest version is being packaged. [FAIL] BuildRequires are proper. [PASS] compiler flags are appropriate. CFLAGS set correctly for a python package. [PASS] %clean is present. [PASS] package builds in mock. [FAIL] rpmlint is silent. [FAIL] final provides and requires are sane [IGNORE] %check is present and all tests pass: [PASS] no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. [PASS] owns the directories it creates. [PASS] doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. [PASS] no duplicates in %files. [FAIL] file permissions are appropriate. See rpmlint messages. [IGNORE] scriptlets match those on ScriptletSnippets page. [PASS] code, not content. [PASS] documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. [PASS] %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. [PASS] no headers. [PASS] no pkgconfig files. [PASS] no libtool .la droppings. [INGORE] desktop files valid and installed properly.
RPMLINT: + python26-mysqldb.src: W: unexpanded-macro dependency python26-devel >= %{pyver} %{pyver}
This is just odd because of how pyver is defined above. Change this and all the other %defines to be %global might hopefully fix this.
+ python26-mysqldb.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/_mysql.so _mysql.so()(64bit) It provides '_mysql.so()(64bit)' This can be filtered out. I've only recently started doing this and I think it is the correct thing to do but nobody seems to do it.
+ python26-mysqldb.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/_mysql.so 0775L Can this be fixed?
QUERY: The tar ball is called MySQL-python*.tar.gz and the existing 2.4 package is MySQL-python. For me it makes sense to make it obvious within a OS release that this corresponds to the 2.4 package MySQL-python. i.e can we consider renamaing the package as MySQL-python26?
FAIL: +The file GPL has not been included as a doc file. +There looks to be a 1.2.3 rather than 1.2.3c release can we update to that. +The Requires explictly mention mysql as needed but this is pulled in any anyway by the autogenerated libmysqlclient_r.so.15()(64bit) requirement so can be removed. Can you check for mx as well if it is needed. + gcc nor Distutils is needed in BuildRequires since they will always be there.
COMMENTS: + Use the %global for the defines. + The Source0 contain prdownloads, can the 'pr' be dropped. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Sourceforge.net + You don't set a %{!?python_sitearch: %global python_sitearch %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib(1))")}
and then make use of that in %files which is the more normall thing to do rather than the /usr/%{_lib}. The prefix of '/usr/' certainly should go somehow ideally.
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=574545
BJ Dierkes wdierkes@rackspace.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |wdierkes@rackspace.com
--- Comment #2 from BJ Dierkes wdierkes@rackspace.com 2010-10-08 18:18:36 EDT --- I've added some fixes to your SPEC resolving the above, and a few others (rpmlint warnings). Feel free to use the changes if you like:
SPEC: http://5dollarwhitebox.org/tmp/python26-mysqldb.spec SRPM: http://5dollarwhitebox.org/tmp/python26-mysqldb-1.2.3c1-3.fc13.src.rpm
A diff of the changes is at:
http://5dollarwhitebox.org/tmp/python26-mysqldb.patch
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=574545
--- Comment #3 from Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch 2010-11-23 12:17:49 EST --- Hi Dave,
I'll probably approve this if you incorporate Brians changes into a new package.
Steve
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=574545
--- Comment #4 from Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch 2011-05-18 07:35:43 EDT --- ping.
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=574545
--- Comment #5 from Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch 2011-06-08 04:00:37 EDT --- Hi Dave,
Do you mind if I take this review over?
Steve.
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=574545
--- Comment #6 from Dave Malcolm dmalcolm@redhat.com 2011-06-08 10:28:14 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5)
Hi Dave,
Do you mind if I take this review over?
Sure. Thanks for your work on this so far, and sorry for the lack of response.
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=574545
Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|steve.traylen@cern.ch |nobody@fedoraproject.org Flag|fedora-review? |
--- Comment #7 from Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch 2011-08-10 18:07:05 EDT --- I've removed myself as the assignee, it's not obvious that I can change who submitted this to me.
New packages:
http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python26-mysqldb/python26-mysqldb-1.2.3-1.src.r... http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python26-mysqldb/python26-mysqldb.spec
Dave this is your package but updated 1.2.3 and a slight mistake in your filter.
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=574545
Ricardo Rocha rocha.porto@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rocha.porto@gmail.com AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |rocha.porto@gmail.com 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=574545
--- Comment #8 from Ricardo Rocha rocha.porto@gmail.com 2011-11-17 16:18:07 EST --- Review of python26-mysqldb: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=574545
Package builds with mock in a EL5 machine, and koji also succeeds: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3522613
EL6 and F16 fail, but this is not targetted at those.
+:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing
MUST Items: [+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
rpmlint is not silent, but it looks reasonable.
E: no-binary W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
This is the same issue as for nagios packages i guess, python site-packages in under /usr/$libdir/python2.6/site-packages.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Follows the rest of the python26-* packages. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [-] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines.
See below.
[-] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
Sources mention GPL (in metadata.cfg and README), and according to the guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses ... A GPL or LGPL licensed package that lacks any statement of what version that it's licensed under in the source code/program output/accompanying docs is technically licensed under *any* version of the GPL or LGPL, not just the version in whatever COPYING file they include.
So i guess it should be GPL+, not GPLv2 (or at least GPLv2+).
[+] 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. The source package does not contain the license file. [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. # md5sum MySQL-python-1.2.3.tar.gz* 215eddb6d853f6f4be5b4afc4154292f MySQL-python-1.2.3.tar.gz 215eddb6d853f6f4be5b4afc4154292f MySQL-python-1.2.3.tar.gzsrc [+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Targeted only at EPEL5, works. [+] 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. [-] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
It does build without, but according to the python guidelines you need python26-devel: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires
[+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Not used. [+] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. Package has a _mysql.so, but not in a default path. [+] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review [+] 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. [+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [+] 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. [+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage. Not the case. [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. No header files. [+] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. No static libraries. [+] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). No pkgconfig. [+] 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. Only _mysql.so is provided. [+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} No -devel. [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. [+] 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. No GUI. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
SHOULD Items: [=] 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.
I couldn't find it anywhere, please ask to include.
[+] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. English is ok, add others if you want. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Checked i386, ppc, x86_64. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. At least it installs. [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [+] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency.
Additional python checks: [+] MUST: Python eggs must be built from source. They cannot simply drop an egg from upstream into the proper directory. (See prebuilt binaries Guidelines for details) The sources do provide an egginfo directory, but it's not the one being packaged. [+] MUST: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. Seems to be an issue only for easy_install, not the case. [+] MUST: When building a compat package, it must install using easy_install -m so it won't conflict with the main package. Not a multi-version package. [+] MUST: 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. Not a multi-version package. [+] SHOULD: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. egginfo available.
Additional comments:
- python_sitearch is defined as requested by the guidelines for <=RHEL5 || Fedora < 13
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=574545
--- Comment #9 from Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch 2011-11-19 06:07:03 EST --- Thanks for the comments.
A GPL file is present in the test release MySQL-python-1.2.3c1 so I won't request that it be added.
License changed to GPL.
The python26-devel is there just not obviously: $ rpm -qp --requires python26-mysqldb-1.2.3-1.el5.src.rpm python26 >= 2.6 python26-devel >= 2.6 mysql-devel openssl-devel python26-distribute gcc Distutils
Though this highlights that python26 itself should not be in the BR as implicit from python26-devel.
Also gcc is not needed explicitly, removed also.
I think that was everything you mentioned.
New Package
http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python26-mysqldb/python26-mysqldb-1.2.3-2.src.r... http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python26-mysqldb/python26-mysqldb.spec
Steve.
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=574545
--- Comment #10 from Ricardo Rocha rocha.porto@gmail.com 2011-11-23 04:13:34 EST --- The spec link works fine, but the src rpm seems to be missing here: http://straylen.web.cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python26-mysqldb/
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=574545
--- Comment #11 from Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch 2011-11-23 04:20:47 EST --- Ooops:
http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python26-mysqldb/python26-mysqldb-1.2.3-2.el5.s... http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python26-mysqldb/python26-mysqldb.spec
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=574545
Ricardo Rocha rocha.porto@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #12 from Ricardo Rocha rocha.porto@gmail.com 2011-11-23 07:43:42 EST --- Looks good. I just did a build/install and tested basic usage, looks ok.
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=574545
Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #13 from Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch 2011-11-23 07:52:33 EST --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python26-mysqldb Short Description: Interface to MySQL for python2.6 Owners: stevetraylen Branches: el5 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=574545
--- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla limb@jcomserv.net 2011-11-23 07:56:35 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=574545
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=574545
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-01-11 11:55:39 EST --- python26-mysqldb-1.2.3-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python26-mysqldb-1.2.3-2.el5
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=574545
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-01-15 18:23:19 EST --- Package python26-mysqldb-1.2.3-2.el5: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=epel-testing python26-mysqldb-1.2.3-2.el5' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2012-0116/python26-mysql... 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=574545
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |python26-mysqldb-1.2.3-2.el | |5 Resolution| |ERRATA Last Closed| |2012-01-30 12:37:11
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-01-30 12:37:11 EST --- python26-mysqldb-1.2.3-2.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org