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=481759 Jochen Schmitt <jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jochen Schmitt <jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-01-28 11:46:46 EDT --- Good: + Basename of SPEC file matches with package name + Name of the package fits naming guidelines for python addon packages + Consistently usage of rpm macros + Could download upstream tarball with spectool + Package contains most recent release of the software + Tar ball in the package matches with upstream (md5sum: e67d9b40a9f88f62246a8248faede6c5) + Package contains proper License tag + License tag claims BSD and LGPLv2+ as valid OSS licenses + Package contains a verbatin copy of the license text + %doc stanza is small, so we not need a separate doc subpackage + Buildroot definition seems ok + Local install/uninstall works fine + Packaged files have proper files permissions + Packaged files are owned by the package + Packaged files doesn't own by other packages + Build on koji without python-setupdocs fails, because package try to download it from the internet + Package contains no subpackages + Locel build works fine + Rpmlint is silient for source and binary rpms. + Buildroot will be cleaned on the beginning of %clean and %install + Package contains proper %changelog Questions: * Does it may sense to pacakge the %{python_sitelib}/integrationtest directory? I assume it's only require for testing the built package, so we should remove this directory from the package. Bad: - Cant find python-setupdocs in the Fedora repository - Please remove the AppTools.egg-info directory from the sources in the %setup stanza to make sure, that the err-info files are built from sources TODO: - Not all source files have a proper copyright note (Please notify the upstream maintainer to fix this issue in the next release) - A refview shows, that mostly all files which have a copyrith note are licensed under the terms of the BSD license. So why there are references agains the LGPLv2+? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review