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

Bug 193110

Summary: Review Request: python-sexy
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Haïkel Guémar <karlthered>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Kevin Fenzi <kevin>
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhide   
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2006-08-26 14:53:24 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 163779    

Description Haïkel Guémar 2006-05-25 11:07:51 UTC
Spec URL:
Description: python bindings to libsexy
This is one of my first packages, I need a sponsor

Comment 1 Brian Pepple 2006-05-25 13:42:29 UTC
Couple of quick notes:

1. Drop the Requires on libsexy, since the soname from the BR on libsexy-devel
will pull this in.
2. Drop the BR on python, since you have a BR on python-devel which will pull
this in.
3. Look at the python packaging guidelines.  A lot of issues with the spec (in
particular the %files section) can be fixed with the suggestions from there.

Comment 2 Haïkel Guémar 2006-05-27 13:37:36 UTC
Thanks for your pieces of advice.
I uploaded new spec and srpm:

Comment 3 Kevin Fenzi 2006-08-17 02:23:04 UTC
Greetings. Here's a review:

OK - Package name
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
See below - License
See below - License field in spec matches
See below - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
94273fc16a35123f1d3003f1080bf2c0  sexy-python-0.1.8.tar.gz
94273fc16a35123f1d3003f1080bf2c0  sexy-python-0.1.8.tar.gz.1
See below - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
n/a - Package needs ExcludeArch
OK - BuildRequires correct
n/a - Spec handles locales/find_lang
n/a - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
n/a - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
n/a - -doc subpackage needed/used.
n/a - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
n/a - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
n/a - .pc files in -devel subpackage.
n/a - .so files in -devel subpackage.
n/a - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
OK - .la files are removed.
n/a - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
See below - No rpmlint output.


See below - Should include License or ask upstream to include it.
See below - Should build in mock.


1. The spec says the license is LGPL, but the COPYING file is the GPL,
and there's nothing else that says it's LGPL. Can you get upstream to

2. No need to include the generic INSTALL document. There is no useful
information in it.

3. Package doesn't built in mock. Missing BuildRequires: libxml2-devel.

4. python_sitelib isn't used, can remove the first line of the spec where
it's defined?

5. rpmlint output:

W: python-sexy setup-not-quiet
setup-not-quiet :
You should use -q to have a quiet extraction of the source tarball, as this
generate useless lines of log ( for buildbot, for example )

(removing FE-NEEDSPONSOR as you were already sponsored in: )

Comment 4 Haïkel Guémar 2006-08-17 14:08:59 UTC

* updated spec:
* updated srpm:
* Issues:
1/ I send a mail to Christian Hammond and Raphael Slinckx the authors of the
bindings to clear that issue. For the moment, the spec says it's GPL waiting
sexy-python maintainers answer.
2/ That's OK for me, done.
3/ Tested under Mock: it builds fine now.
4/ That's OK for me, done.
5/ Thank you for the advice. 
rpmlint output :
[build@localhost result]$ rpmlint -i python-sexy-0.1.8-4.i386.rpm
[build@localhost result]$ 

Comment 5 Haïkel Guémar 2006-08-17 15:10:42 UTC
wrong URL for the srpm:

Comment 6 Kevin Fenzi 2006-08-21 18:40:05 UTC
Issues 2-5 look good and corrected. 

I would prefer to have clarification on the License before approving the 
package. I would be unfortunate for us to try and distribute it under the wrong 

Any word from the upstream authors on License issues?

Comment 7 Haïkel Guémar 2006-08-21 19:22:34 UTC
I got an answer from Christian Hammond 08/17 , he thinks that all bindings to
libesexy should be licensed under LGPL, but since he doesn't hold copyright on
all the code it's up to Raphael Slinckx who still hasn't answered my mail.
If he hasn't answered later this week, I'll ping him again.

Comment 8 Haïkel Guémar 2006-08-24 23:44:52 UTC
I've talked to Raphael Slinckx on IRC and he agrees that python-sexy should be
under LGPL. I've mailed Christian Hammond in order to update the license file on

Comment 9 Kevin Fenzi 2006-08-25 01:15:22 UTC
Excellent. Thats the last blocker I saw, so this package is APPROVED. 

Remember to close this bug with NEXTRELEASE once it's imported and built. 

Comment 10 Haïkel Guémar 2006-08-26 14:53:24 UTC
It has been imported and it builds fine on all supported platforms.