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=511276 --- Comment #6 from Nils Philippsen <nphilipp@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-20 05:53:50 EDT --- First round :-). I'd appreciate if you would check the issues listed below in your other packages pending review, this would make their reviews so much simpler. Thanks! Items marked "GOOD" or "PASS" fulfil the guidelines or they don't apply to this package. Items marked "CHECK" aren't covered by the guidelines but you should check and fix them anyway in my opinion. Items marked "BAD" violate the guidelines in some point and need to be fixed. - BAD: rpmlint run on comoonics-base-py-0-1-1.src.rpm flags errors/warnings: comoonics-base-py.src: E: description-line-too-long comoonics.ComDataObject: abstract basic DOM-Based class that is base for any other DOM-Based class comoonics-base-py.src: E: description-line-too-long comooncis.ComExceptions: the library provides a base class for all comoonics exceptions. comoonics-base-py.src: E: description-line-too-long comoonics.ComSystem: library for some commonly used functions to execute commands. --> description lines must be 79 characters or shorter, please shorten (and fix the typo "comooncis.ComExceptions:..." while you're at it) comoonics-base-py.src: E: no-changelogname-tag --> start and maintain a package changelog, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs comoonics-base-py.src: W: invalid-license GPL --> I've looked at a few source files which state that they are licensed under GPL version 3 or later, this would make the license "GPLv3+". It would be nice if the package contained a README making this explicit for the whole package as well as a copy of the license (since you're upstream, this should be no problem). Be sure to bump the upstream/tarball version when you do this though. comoonics-base-py.src: W: non-coherent-filename comoonics-base-py-0-1-1.src.rpm comoonics-base-py-0.1-1.src.rpm --> I think this is only some typo from copying the file over to your webserver, correct? comoonics-base-py.src:17: W: hardcoded-packager-tag Marc --> please get rid of the Packager:/Vendor: lines, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Tags comoonics-base-py.src:38: W: setup-not-quiet --> use "%setup -q" -- by the way, what's the business with %version/%unmangled_version? As it is, they're the same and packages should have the same version number as their upstream as well. If you're thinking about alpha/beta versions, please see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Package_Version for more info -- you (as upstream) will make your life (as packager) much easier then. Also, using "%define name foo", then "Name: %name" and the like is unnecessary, if you just define name, versino, release the normal way, the corresponding macros will be set as well. comoonics-base-py.src: E: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 4 warnings. --> clean the build root as described in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Tags (just like in %clean) before installing - GOOD: package name according to guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28python_modules.29 (only fix the source rpm file name please) - GOOD: spec file named properly - GOOD/CHECK: licensing mostly clear (see above, an added README would be good) and according to licensing guidelines https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines - CHECK: license files are not shipped as documentation, but they aren't shipped in the upstream tarball, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text -- since you're upstream you really should ship it though ;-) - GOOD: the spec file is written in American English - GOOD: the spec file is legible - CHECK: no source tarball URL, it would be good if the tarball used were directly available -- see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL - BAD: doesn't build in mock for x86_64/Rawhide - BAD: no build dependencies listed --> at least python-devel is missing as a build dependency (and a dependency of the generated installable package), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python - PASS: doesn't ship locale files - PASS: no libraries shipped - BAD/CHECK: package is made relocatable (Prefix: ...), please remove or justify its use, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RelocatablePackages - BAD: not all shipped directories owned by package, direct dependency or filesystem --> instead of using the file list generated by your setup.py, define %python_sitelib at the top of your spec file and simply list the directory containing your module, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python : %{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print get_python_lib()")} [...] %files %defattr (-, root, root, -) %{python_sitelib}/comoonics - GOOD: no duplicates in %files - CHECK: permissions on files --> There are three files in the comoonics module which have mode 0644, but a "#!/usr/bin/python" line at the top of the file: comoonics-base-py.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/comoonics/XmlTools.py 0644 /usr/bin/python comoonics-base-py.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/comoonics/DictTools.py 0644 /usr/bin/python comoonics-base-py.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/comoonics/ComProperties.py 0644 /usr/bin/python Are they supposed to be executed directly (-> fix mode) or not (remove the line)? - GOOD: package has a %clean section - GOOD: package uses macros consistently - GOOD: the package contains code, not content - PASS: no large documentation files - GOOD: %doc doesn't affect runtime - PASS: no header files - PASS: no static libraries - PASS: no pkgconfig files - PASS: no libraries included - PASS: no devel package - GOOD: no *.la libtool archives - PASS: no desktop file - GOOD: doesn't own files or directories owned by other packages - BAD: build root isn't cleaned at the beginning of %install (see rpmlint comment above) - GOOD: all file names are valid UTF-8 -- 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