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=503672 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #12 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-02 18:31:09 EDT --- That one builds; rpmlint says: python-webpy.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages /web/utils.py 0644 python-webpy.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages /web/application.py 0644 python-webpy.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages /web/__init__.py 0644 These happen because those files start with the usual "#!" lines that scripts start with, but they aren't executable. For some reason, python programmers like to do this although I've never understand why. Some packagers prefer to fix them by stripping the first line; others just leave the files alone and ignore the rpmlint warning. You shouldn't generally make them executable. Please also check the licensing of the files debugerror.py and httpserver.py; they definitely aren't public domain. Those files have different copyright, but I'm pretty sure they're also under the BSD license. You should double check and update the comment about the licensing in your spec. There's a test suite present. I know some of the tests expect an existing database, which obviously won't work. I don't know if there are any others that could be run in a %check section at package build time, but it would be good to check. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: 4e92f0e46731181cbb1daa9d20c5ac4850fa1650144b4f82ed0f296ebeb6f40b web.py- 0.32.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. ? license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: python-webpy = 0.32-2.fc12 = python(abi) = 2.6 ? %check is not present, but there a test suite. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. The package review process needs reviewers! If you haven't done any package reviews recently, please consider doing one. -- 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