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=495357 Till Maas <opensource@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |opensource@xxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Till Maas <opensource@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-04-13 11:26:51 EDT --- [GOOD ENOUGH] rpmlint output: python-twill.noarch: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/twill-fork 0775 It seems that the umask of the user building the rpm affects the permissions of the files inside the rpm. This is not nice imho. [OK] Spec in %{name}.spec format [OK] license allowed: MIT [OK] license matches shortname in License: tag [OK] license in tarball and included in %doc: LICENSE.txt [OK] package is code or permissive content: {OK} patches sent to upstream and commented [OK] Source0 is a working URL {N/A} Sourceforge URL is Source0: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz <GOOD ENOUGH> SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name} It is nicer to have future patches in the form: %{name}-%{version}-$SUFFIX.patch and to use -b .$SUFFIX in the according %patchX command to make rediffing easier. [OK] Source0 matches Upstream: c362307616696f4838e9456c42b70fdc twill-0.9.tar.gz [OK] Package builds on all platforms: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1294675 [N/A] ExcludeArch bugs are filed and commented: [OK] BuildRequires are complete (mock builds) (OK) No file dependencies outside of /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin /usr/sbin [N/A] %find_lang used for locales [N/A] Every (sub)package containing libraries runs ldconfig [N/A] .h (header) files are in -devel subpackage [N/A] .a (static libraries) are in -static subpackage [N/A] contains .pc (pkgconfig) files and has Requires: pkgconfig (N/A) .pc files are in -devel subpackage [N/A] contains .so.X(.Y) files and .so is in -devel [N/A] -devel subpackage has Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [N/A] .la files (libtool) are not included [N/A] Has GUI and includes %{name}.desktop [N/A] Follows desktop entry spec [N/A] Valid .desktop Name [N/A] Valid .desktop GenericName [N/A] Valid .desktop Categories [N/A] Valid .desktop StartupNotify [N/A] .desktop file installed with desktop-file-install in %install [OK] Prefix: /usr not used (not relocatable) [OK] Owns all created directories [OK] no duplicates in %files [OK] %defattr(-,root,root,-) is in every %files section [OK] Does not own files or dirs from other packages [OK] included filenames are in UTF-8 [OK] %clean is rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [OK] %install starts with rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [OK] Consistent macro usage [OK] large documentation is -doc subpackage [OK] %doc does not affect runtime {OK} no pre-built binaries (.a, .so*, executable) {OK} well known BuildRoot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root {OK} PreReq not used {N/A} RPM_OPT_FLAGS honoured {N/A} Useful debuginfo generated {OK} no duplication of system libraries {N/A} no rpath {N/A} Timestamps preserved with cp and install {N/A} Uses parallel make (%{?_smp_mflags}) {OK} Requires(pre,post) style notation not used {OK} only writes to tmp /var/tmp $TMPDIR %{_tmppath} %{_builddir} (and %{buildroot} on %install and %clean) {OK} no Conflicts {OK} nothing installed in /srv {OK} Changelog in allowed format {OK} does not use Scriptlets <OK> Architecture independent packages have: BuildArch: noarch <OK> Sane Provides: and Requires: {OK} Follows Naming Guidelines Python {OK} Has BuildRequires: python - via BR: python-setuptools or python-devel {OK} Defines and uses %{python_sitelib}: %{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print get_python_lib()")} {N/A} Defines and uses %{python_sitearch}: %{!?python_sitearch: %global python_sitearch %(%{__python} -c "from %distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print get_python_lib(1)")} {GOOD ENOUGH} Has BuildRequires: python-setuptools-devel Seems not to be needed. Only easy_install seems to be in the -devel package. Not sure, why the Guidelines say it should be there. [OK] Python eggs must be built from source. They cannot simply drop an egg from upstream into the proper directory. [OK] Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [OK] If egg-info files are generated by the modules build scripts they must be included in the package. [N/A] When building a compat package, it must install using easy_install -m so it won't conflict with the main package. [N/A] When building multiple versions (for a compat package) one of the packages must contain a default version that is usable via "import MODULE" with no prior setup. (OK) A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. {NOT OK} Egg install: %install %{__python} setup.py install --skip-build --root $RPM_BUILD_ROOT The "--single-version-externally-managed" is not needed anymore: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python/Eggs#Providing_Eggs_using_Setuptools There are only minor issues or issues that do not affect rpms building within the Fedora buildsystem: Please change the build to not let the umask of the user building the rpm affect the final rpm. I am not sure, whether this is a default bad beheaviour of the python build system or not. Please consider adding -b .fork to the %patch0 to make rediffing easier and plase use the package name in the patch in the future. Please remove the uneeded argument in %install before importing this package into Fedora. APPROVED -- 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