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=522613 Rene Ploetz <reneploetz@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |reneploetz@xxxxxx --- Comment #2 from Rene Ploetz <reneploetz@xxxxxx> 2009-09-24 13:07:59 EDT --- This is an unofficial review for the original package and spec file: +: ok !: needs to be fixed -: not applicable MUST Items: [+] rpmlint comes out clean on every package [+] package name meets Package Naming Guidelines [+] spec file name must match base package name [+] the package license (ASL 2.0) is correct and allowed in Fedora [+] spec file is legible and written in American English [+] SOURCE url points to packaged source archive [+] package md5sum matches upstream (69d6c60c4eca3a32de23aa5e3717b6f2) [+] BuildRequires are correctly specified as per Python Guidelines (see below) [+] package builds fine in koji [-] locales are properly handled [+] no system libraries are bundled [-] if package installs libraries in default paths run ldconfig in %post/%postun [!] package owns the directories it creates %{python_sitelib}/%{name}/* is not sufficient, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories#Common_Mistakes This way you would not own %{python_sitelib}/%{name} [+] no file is listed twice [+] permissions on files are explictly set (via defattr) [+] package must contain %clean with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [!] macros are consistently used You should decide to either use %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT - either one is fine, but mixing them should be avoided. [+] the package has permissable code / content [-] large documentations must be put into -doc subpackage [+] files included in %doc must not be essential for the application to work [-] header files must be in -devel package [-] static libraries must be in a -static package [-] packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must "Requires: pkgconfig" [-] library files without a suffix (foo.so) must go into -devel subpackage if libraries with a suffix (foo.so.0.0) are present. [-] %{name}-devel packages must specify a fully versioned dependency on the %{name} package [-] package must not contain any libtool (.la) archives [-] (most) GUI applications need to include a %{name}.desktop file [+] package must not own any file or directory already owned by another package [+] first command in %install must be rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [+] all filesnames in package are valid UTF-8 SHOULD-Items: [!] if source package does not include license text as seperate file, packager should query upstream to include it [-] if available, description and summary in spec file should contain translations for non-english languages [+] package builds fine in mock [+] package should compile on all supported architectures [+] package does work during a short test [+] scriptlets - if used - must be sane [-] non-devel subpackages should require the base package [-] pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in -devel package [-] if package does require a file outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin, packager should require the package which provides the file (not the file alone) Python-specific MUST-Items: [+] package must (almost always) require python-devel [+] if package wants to install into the global site_packages directory, python_sitelib must be defined according to Python Guidelines [-] python eggs must be built from source [-] python eggs must not be downloading dependencies during build process [+] egg-info files must be included in the package if available [-] compat packages must install using easy_install -m [-] if building multiple versions (compat packages), one package must contain a default version usable via "import modulename" [+] all python source files except those in %{_bindir} and %{_sbindir} must be byte-compiled into *.pyo and both source and compiled version must be included in the package Summary: * package does not own every directory it creates * mixed usage of %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Note: This package will not compile for Fedora < 11, as the setup script will try to compile epoll.c as F10 has only Python 2.5, but this is not a blocker. Other Questions: Why do you use a script to remove the shebangs from files? Creating a patch may be better to verify the changes you make to the source - especially if you only want to make rpmlint happy. You should also consider to update your package to match the latest upstream version (0.2). -- 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