Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 185498
Summary: | Review Request: gjots2 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Radek Vokál <rvokal> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Gérard Milmeister <gemi> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | gemi |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
URL: | http://people.redhat.com/rvokal/gjots2/gjots2-2.3.4-3.src.rpm | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2006-04-03 06:08:23 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 163779 |
Description
Radek Vokál
2006-03-15 09:14:23 UTC
%{__install} and %{__rm} are acceptable. There is nothing about these macros in the PackagingGuideLines, and I even asked once on the list. - Does it make sense to compile .py to .pyc? - Don't use / to list files. Only package files and directories that are actually owned. - Here is the output of rpmlint: W: gjots2 no-version-in-last-changelog E: gjots2 no-binary E: gjots2 only-non-binary-in-usr-lib E: gjots2 script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/gjots2/sortDialog.py E: gjots2 script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/gjots2/file.py E: gjots2 script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/gjots2/general.py E: gjots2 standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/bin E: gjots2 script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/gjots2/prefs.py E: gjots2 script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/gjots2/find.py E: gjots2 standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/lib E: gjots2 standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/src W: gjots2 file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/man1/docbook2gjots.1.gz E: gjots2 standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/man/man1 E: gjots2 script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/gjots2/gui.py E: gjots2 standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr W: gjots2 file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/man1/gjots2docbook.1.gz E: gjots2 standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share E: gjots2 standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/man E: gjots2 script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/gjots2/common.py W: gjots2 file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/man1/gjots2html.1.gz E: gjots2 script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/gjots2/version.py E: gjots2 script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/gjots2/__init__.py E: gjots2 script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/gjots2/printDialog.py I've fixed some of those issues, see http://people.redhat.com/rvokal/gjots2/gjots2-2.3.4-2.src.rpm but there are still 2 remaining, which I'm not sure how to fix E: gjots2 no-binary E: gjots2 only-non-binary-in-usr-lib does it apply on python? (In reply to comment #3) > I've fixed some of those issues, see > > http://people.redhat.com/rvokal/gjots2/gjots2-2.3.4-2.src.rpm > > but there are still 2 remaining, which I'm not sure how to fix > > E: gjots2 no-binary > E: gjots2 only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > > does it apply on python? Yes. Usually these would go under %{python_sitelib}, which rpmlint wouldn't complain about. And the usual fix for the "script without shellbang" issue would be to remove the execute bit from the .py files rather than adding shellbangs. This is because the python modules are imported by the scripts you do actually execute (in %{_bindir}) and they don't need to be executable for that. >> E: gjots2 no-binary >> E: gjots2 only-non-binary-in-usr-lib >> >> does it apply on python? > Yes. Usually these would go under %{python_sitelib}, which rpmlint wouldn't > complain about. Alternately, they could go into %{_datadir}/%{name}. The usual criteria is whether the files are going to be used as a module within other programs or are just pieces of the base application that aren't going to be useful as library files. (Or whatever upstream prefers :-) python-docutils and gourmet are examples of something that installs to %{python_sitelib}. rpmlint and qa-assistant are examples of installing to %{_datadir}/%{name}. You might consider downloading and taking a look at the source rpms for some of those packages for examples of how they do things. There are several things in your spec that need to be changed and looking at those specs will help. (One thing that jumps out is that the package only includes .py files. You need to compile the files and include the .pyc files. .pyo files need to either be included or %ghosted as well.) Thanks for tips, I've moved all libs to python_sitelib. Hope it's fine now. http://people.redhat.com/rvokal/gjots2/gjots2-2.3.4-3.src.rpm - Needs BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils Most things are ok now, however I don't think you should %ghost the .pyc and .pyo files. At least the .pyc should be effectively included. Fixed, (I kept the release number) http://people.redhat.com/rvokal/gjots2/gjots2-2.3.4-4.src.rpm only pyo files are ghosted now APPROVED You may close this bug now. |