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: sos https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193712 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-06-23 13:36 EST ------- Howdy, Steve. Since this is your first Extras package, I did a bit of searching but didn't see any other reviews or package submissions by you. Might I suggest that you take a look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/HowToGetSponsored for some tips. Basically, a sponsor has to decide whether or not it looks as if you understand the packaging guidelines; a single package submission is often not enough for us to determine that. Have you commented on other reviews? Since you're a Red Hat employee, do you maintain any packages in Core that we might look at? Feel free to let us know. Now, some comments on the package at hand. From the above comments one might thing that everything is smooth sailing, but I had some trouble. In fact, the package doesn't build for me in mock. I get down to the end and then: Processing files: sos-0.1-5.fc6 error: File not found: /var/tmp/sos-0.1-5.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/python2.4/site-packages/sos plus a bunch of cascading errors. The cause seems to be simple; this is a noarch package, but you specify %{python_sitearch} for your files. On i386 the locations happen to be identical, but on x86_64 arch-specific libraries go under /usr/lib64. Use %{python_sitelib} instead; things will build then. Some other issues: You shouldn't use Vendor:. There's no reason for Provides: sos; a package automatically provides itself. This causes the following rpmlint error: E: sos useless-explicit-provides sos Don't indent your %description. I'm assuming you're the upstream for this and that there's no location where the source tarball can be downloaded directory. This is acceptable. BR: python is redundant; it's already in the buildroot. FC3 and later all have the required python version so there won't be any problems with the version. Requires: python is also redundant; RPM will find the python(abi) dependency itself. You obsolete sysreport, but don't provide it. Generally obsoletes are provided so that people can still install under the old names. However, if the obsoleted package version was never in Core or Extras then this is acceptable (and you should consider just removing the obsolete). This causes the following rpmlint error: E: sos obsolete-not-provided sysreport rpmlint also complains about many of the python source files: E: sos non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/sos/plugins/general.py 0644 (and so on). The problem is that these files start with #!/usr/bin/env python but they're not actually scripts. Are those files supposed to do anything if you run them? If so, they should be executable. If not, they shouldn't have the shebang line. Python programs seem to do this often but I haven't ever understood why. Note that rpm will byte-compile and optomize every single .py file it finds. This results in your packaging the .pyo files, which shouldn't be packaged. Generally you should %ghost these in the file list. -- 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-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review