Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pessulus-0.9 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188205 ------- Additional Comments From tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx 2006-04-07 15:49 EST ------- A few changes need to be made to this package: - You were missing a lot of BuildRequires. Look carefully at what %configure is checking for. - Remove unnecessary Requires: There is no need to hardcode gtk when pygtk is a Requires. - You should always use version-release in changelog entries - Make sure you have correct directory ownership, instead of wild-carding %{_libdir} - use python_sitearch for python packages - make python "scripts" executable, this will shutup rpmlint - use find_lang to grab locales I'm attaching a fixed spec to this email. The following review is based on the fixed spec: Good: - rpmlint checks return: E: pessulus no-binary (safe to ignore) E: pessulus script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/Pessulus/__init__.py (safe to ignore, this is a 0 file) - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (GPL) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - locales handled properly - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - desktop file OK Unless you have issues with any of the changes in my spec, the package (as modified by my spec) is approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
