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=494517 --- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2009-04-08 18:06:48 EDT --- - Why do you remove the egg? It should be included: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python/Eggs - Drop explicit Requires: python, it is automatically picked up. - For clearness, remove "--record=INSTALLED_FILES" from install phase, since the record isn't used for anything. - Add "-O1 --skip-build" to install phase. - Extend description. Maybe use that from upstream: A kit to manipulate xorg.conf which is aimed at both developers and users. It is a distribution and desktop agnostic project. X-kit is composed of the following programs: * XorgParser: a simple, transparent and easy to extend xorg parser. * XorgValidator: a program which uses X-parser, tries to make sense of xorg.conf and operates accordingly. * XorgConfig-gtk: a simple GUI to xorg.conf * XorgConfig-kde: a simple GUI to xorg.conf ------- Review: rpmlint output: x-kit.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/x-kit-0.4.2/examples/0-example.py x-kit.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/x-kit-0.4.2/examples/1-example.py x-kit.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/x-kit-0.4.2/tests/run x-kit.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/x-kit-0.4.2/tests/run /usr/bin/python 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. - Remove executable perms in setup phase, after that rpmlint output becomes clean. MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. OK MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. OK MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. OK MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. OK MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. OK MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK MUST: Clean section exists. OK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. OK MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. OK MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. OK MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. OK MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. OK MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. OK MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. OK MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. OK MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK -- 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