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=510038 --- Comment #4 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2009-07-08 05:09:36 EDT --- - Python packages need BR: python-devel, this one has BR: python-setuptools-devel which pulls in python-devel, so that's ok. NB. python-setuptools-devel isn't available on EPEL, for that you need BR: python-devel, python-setuptools. - I suggest using "python" instead of "%{__python}". - Instead of %{python_sitelib}/* you should list %{python_sitelib}/icalendar/ %{python_sitelib}/icalendar-*.egg-info/ since the first version won't notice if the egg-info is missing. - Drop the python spec template comment # For noarch packages: sitelib ** rpmlint output in comment #3. - Add doc as mentioned in #1, except version.txt which isn't really necessary (the version info is already in the RPM itself). 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 - Python module with name that doesn't contain py or Py => prefix python-. 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. NEEDSWORK - License mentioned in src/icalendar/parser.py is GPL => license is GPL+. - Other files do not mention any license headers, readme states license is LGPL => LGPLv2+ * Resulting license tag is GPL+ and LGPLv2+ (which probably can be combined to GPLv2+). - Suggest contacting upstream about this. License headers should be present in every source code file. 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. N/A MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A 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: Debuginfo package is complete. 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. N/A MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. NEEDSWORK - Add missing %doc. MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A 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 - Included LGPLv2 license but no GPL... 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