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=226330 Vitezslav Crhonek <vcrhonek@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo? | --- Comment #3 from Vitezslav Crhonek <vcrhonek@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-06-15 10:26:54 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > - Drop > Requires: python > and > BuildRequires: python > since both of these are redundant (first is automatically picked up and second > is a requirement of python-devel). Fixed. > > - Remove > CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" > from the build phase since this is a noarch package. Fixed. > > ** > > rpmlint output: > pychecker.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot A python source code checking tool. > pychecker.noarch: E: tag-not-utf8 %changelog > pychecker.noarch: E: non-executable-script > /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pychecker/Stack.py 0644 > pychecker.noarch: E: non-executable-script > /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pychecker/OP.py 0644 > pychecker.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/pychecker-0.8.17/MAINTAINERS > pychecker.noarch: E: non-executable-script > /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pychecker/warn.py 0644 > pychecker.noarch: E: non-executable-script > /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pychecker/printer.py 0644 > pychecker.noarch: E: non-executable-script > /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pychecker/CodeChecks.py 0644 > pychecker.noarch: E: non-executable-script > /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pychecker/Warning.py 0644 > pychecker.noarch: E: non-executable-script > /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pychecker/msgs.py 0644 > pychecker.noarch: E: non-executable-script > /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pychecker/utils.py 0644 > pychecker.noarch: E: non-executable-script > /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pychecker/Config.py 0644 > pychecker.noarch: E: non-executable-script > /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pychecker/checker.py 0644 > pychecker.noarch: E: non-executable-script > /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pychecker/function.py 0644 > pychecker.noarch: E: non-executable-script > /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pychecker/python.py 0644 > pychecker.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot A python source code checking tool. > pychecker.src: E: tag-not-utf8 %changelog > pychecker.src: E: non-utf8-spec-file > /tmp/rpmlint.pychecker-0.8.17-8.fc10.src.rpm.t9ghWq/pychecker.spec > 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 15 errors, 3 warnings. > > - Fix the above. You can get rid of the non-executable script errors by > removing the shebang with sed in the setup phase, e.g. > sed -i -e '1d' pychecker/checker.py Fixed. > > - Maybe add "-O1 --skip-build" to the install argument of setup.py? There are problems with '--skip-build'. > > 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 > - Source code contains no license heders, please ask upstream to add them. > > 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 the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review