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=459675

Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841

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=459675

Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp

--- Comment #1 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-09-27 13:13:22 EDT --- Some notes:

* License tag - We do not allow BSD"-style" license tag, either "BSD" or "BSD with advertising", or if not BSD, something else. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing In this package the license tag should be "BSD".

* BuildRequires - Without "BuildRequies: python-devel python-setuptools", your srpm won't build (and fixes for 64 bits architecture is needed, see below)

* Requires - "Requires: freetds" is not needed. rpmbuild checks library related dependencies and adds them to the rebuilt binary rpms.

* Macros - Use macros for common directories: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/RPMMacros For example, /usr must be %{_prefix}

* Directory description * On 64 bits architecture site related files must be installed under /usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages and your spec file won't work on 64 bits architecture. * Also %files entry ------------------------------------------------------------------ %files %{_libdir}/* ------------------------------------------------------------------ cannot be allowed because of some reasons. - This contains many subdirectories (directories themselves, not files) which are already listed in filesystem rpm and should not be listed in this package:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Owner... - This contains %{_libdir}/debug, which must be used only for -debuginfo rpm

For python rpm please check https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python#System_Architecture Especially, please check %{python_sitearch} macro or so.

I guess it is better you use a skeleton spec file for python modules and modify it. You can create such skeleton spec file by -------------------------------------------------------------- $ rpmdev-newspec -t python python-sybase -------------------------------------------------------------- (rpmdev-newspec is in rpmdevtools rpm).

* %changelog - Please check %changelog format described in: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs

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=459675

andy@gohanman.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(andy@gohanman.com | |) |

--- Comment #3 from andy@gohanman.com 2008-10-09 10:59:33 EDT --- Sorry for the delay. Lost track of it in my inbox.

I made most of the changes you pointed out. The python rpm info was particularly helpful. It's all macros now.

I did not add python-setuptools to BuildRequires because it builds without that package installed (for me, anyway).

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=459675

--- Comment #5 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-10-10 13:57:45 EDT --- Well,

* BuildRequires - Actually without "BuildRequires: python-setuptools" This package won't build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=872720

* python_sitelib vs python_sitearch - Then after adding "BuildRequires: python-setuptools" this time build fails on x86_64.

If python modules to be installed are arch-dependent, they must be installed under sitearch directory, not sitelib: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python#System_Architecture

Note that on i386/ppc sitelib directory is the same as sitearch directory.

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=459675

Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Flag| |fedora-review?

--- Comment #7 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-10-10 14:44:58 EDT --- I will check your srpm later (I want to go to bed now). Then:

------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: Before being sponsored:

This package will be accepted with another few work. But before I accept this package, someone (I am a candidate) must sponsor you.

Once you are sponsored, you have the right to review other submitters' review requests and approve the packages formally. For this reason, the person who want to be sponsored (like you) are required to "show that you have an understanding of the process and of the packaging guidelines" as is described on : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored

Usually there are two ways to show this. A. submit other review requests with enough quality. B. Do a "pre-review" of other person's review request (at the time you are not sponsored, you cannot do a formal review)

When you have submitted a new review request or have pre-reviewed other person's review request, please write the bug number on this bug report so that I can check your comments or review request.

Fedora package collection review requests which are waiting for someone to review can be checked on: http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html (NOTE: please don't choose "Merge Review")

Review guidelines are described mainly on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets ------------------------------------------------------------

(In reply to comment #6)

Can you give me any information about how you ran the linked test build? It'd be nice to do a more rigorous test like that myself instead of repeatedly posting a bad srpm.

After you get sponsored you can do test build using koji. It may be that even before you get sponsored you can do this, however I am not sure. At least you have to create your account on Fedora account system and setup koji build client, however I am not sure if it is sufficient.

Anyway now I will wait for your another review request or your pre-review of other person's request.

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=459675

Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(andy@gohanman.com | |)

--- Comment #9 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-10-22 09:31:23 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=459675

--- Comment #11 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-10-23 03:53:22 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10)

The RPM *does* definitely work for me. It installs an egg file instead of sybasect.so. and Sybase.py.

After reading https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python/Eggs it seems that Fedora allows this case. Then * As dlopened module sybasect.so is in zipped egg file, debuginfo file is not created. Please follow

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Debuginfo#Useless_or_incomplete_deb... ------------------------------------------------------------------- use %define debug_package %{nil} in the specfile, and be sure to add a comment next to it explaining why it was done. -------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm removing site.py, site.pyc, and site.pyo because these files already exist (from python-setuptools).

Okay.

I see what you mean about the .csvignore and pstumble, but I can't figure out how to do anything about it. The %{_doc} directory in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT doesn't exist yet in the %install section.

%doc LICENCE ChangeLog doc examples installs these files. Just -------------------------------------------------------------------- %setup -q chmod 0644 doc/pstumble rm -f doc/.cvsignore -------------------------------------------------------------------- will suppress rpmlint error/warnings

By the way I am also waiting for your another review request submission or a pre-review of other person's review request.

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=459675

--- Comment #13 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-10-23 14:31:01 EDT --- (In reply to comment #12)

SPEC: http://gohanman.com/rpm/Fedora9/SRPMS/python-sybase.spec SRPM: http://gohanman.com/rpm/Fedora9/SRPMS/python-sybase-0.39-5.src.rpm

- I will check this later (I will go to bed)

I'll put in another review request when I come across something else in need of packaging (is there a list of requests somewhere?)

- If you are interested, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/WishList

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=459675

--- Comment #15 from Andy Theuninck andy@gohanman.com 2008-10-24 13:44:43 EDT --- easy-install.pth can go. I'll repackage it as soon as I'm at a Fedora machine.

I'm working on packaging webmin (off the wishlist), but I don't have it quite put together yet. The author has it set up to put pretty much EVERYTHING into /usr/libexec, and rpmlint isn't particularly happy about that.

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=459675

--- Comment #17 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-10-26 10:19:34 EDT --- This package itself seems now good.

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=459675

Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(andy@gohanman.com | |)

--- Comment #19 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-11-05 10:52:51 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=459675

Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(andy@gohanman.com | |)

--- Comment #21 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-11-12 11:46:01 EDT --- ping again? By the way at least you have to write CVS admin request on 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=459675

--- Comment #23 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-12-07 10:51:37 EDT --- ping again??

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=459675

Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NOTABUG Flag|fedora-review+, | |needinfo?(andy@gohanman.com | |) |

--- Comment #25 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-08 11:48:13 EDT --- Closing as NOTABUG. Also I removed my sponsorship on you.