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=518636 --- Comment #3 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michael.silvanus@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-09-29 13:44:37 EDT --- Hullo! Package looks good enough to normally pass review (though see the one recommended fix in the SHOULD section). Now I just need to see some more evidence of packaging knowledge (esp. since the initial package comes from Tim! Didn't know he does Python packages too, I thought it's only Lua). You cannot do full reviews, since you are not sponsored yet, but you can pre-review other packages -- see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/ReviewRequests for a list of unassigned reviews. Make sure you clearly state that it's a pre-review, and not assign the review to yourself (preventing an authorized reviewer from seeing it). Here's my review for this, as a reference: It's a bit more verbose than normal, I normally take out the irrelevant Not Applicable parts, but in case you review (or package) different types of software, they might come in handy. MUST OK rpmlint $ rpmlint ../SRPMS/django-reversion-1.1.2-2.fc12.src.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/django-reversion-1.1.2-2.fc12.noarch.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. OK package name OK spec file name OK package guideline-compliant OK license complies with guidelines ? license field accurate upstream is unclear about this. Project page and one mention in PKG-INFO states BSD, but there is no license file and PKG-INFO also lists license as UNKNOWN NA license file not deleted not included by upstream. See SHOULD section below OK spec in US English OK spec legible OK source matches upstream $ sha1sum django-reversion-1.1.2.tar.gz ../SOURCES/django-reversion-1.1.2.tar.gz 8ff80fb027dc8f98d21f479b19ef0b450b266811 django-reversion-1.1.2.tar.gz 8ff80fb027dc8f98d21f479b19ef0b450b266811 ../SOURCES/django-reversion-1.1.2.tar.gz OK builds under >= 1 archs, others excluded built using Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1717143 OK build dependencies complete NA locales handled using %find_lang, no %{_datadir}/locale NA library -> ldconfig NA relocatable: give reason OK own all directories OK no dupes in %files OK permission OK %clean RPM_BUILD_ROOT OK macros used consistently OK Package contains code NA large docs => -doc OK doc not runtime dependent NA headers in -devel NA static in -static NA if contains *.pc, req pkgconfig NA if libfiles are suffixed, the non-suffixed goes to devel NA devel requires versioned base package NA desktop file uses desktop-file-install OK clean buildroot before install OK filenames UTF-8 SHOULD FIX if license text missing, ask upstream to include it perhaps post a bug at the upstream tracker and then put a comment in the spec above the %doc PKG-INFO line? that way you can package the correct license file once an fixed update comes out NA desc and summary contain translations if available well, nice to have, but I've only seen one package that does this (and the upstream author added the translation). OK package build in mock on all architectures ? package functioned as described OK scriplets are sane NA other subpackages should require versioned base NA if main pkg is development-wise, pkgconfig can go in main package OK require package not files -- 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