[Bug 515752] Review Request: python-soaplib - python library for creating SOAP services

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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=515752


Steve Milner <smilner@xxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |smilner@xxxxxxxxxx




--- Comment #2 from Steve Milner <smilner@xxxxxxxxxx>  2009-08-05 16:43:41 EDT ---
I don't believe I am able to sponsor you Jordan, but I will go through a
pre-review to try to speed things up (and *hopefully* help out):

- source files match upstream. 

Unable to find upstream version, but did find 0.8.1
(http://pypi.python.org/pypi/soaplib/0.8.1)

* 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.

This does not seem to be the case, can you verify?

* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (F10 i386)
* package installs properly.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires seem sane:
python(abi) = 2.6
pytz
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PartialHardlinkSets) <= 4.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1

* 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

/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/tests
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/tests/serializers
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/tests/serializers/__init__.py
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/tests/serializers/__init__.pyc
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/tests/serializers/__init__.pyo
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/tests/serializers/binary_test.py
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/tests/serializers/binary_test.pyc
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/tests/serializers/binary_test.pyo
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/tests/serializers/clazz_test.py
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/tests/serializers/clazz_test.pyc
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/tests/serializers/clazz_test.pyo
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/tests/serializers/primitive_test.py
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/tests/serializers/primitive_test.pyc
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/tests/serializers/primitive_test.pyo

* code, not content.
* documentation is small, no subpackage required.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.

-- 
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

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]