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=476600 Mads Kiilerich <mads@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mads@xxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Mads Kiilerich <mads@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-10-27 20:50:16 EDT --- An informal walkthrough of the spec file from a wannabee-packager: Mock build fails. Why group Development/Languages when it isn't a language? I would assume Development/Libraries would fit better. URL should point to a version-independent site, I guess that it should be http://pypi.python.org/pypi/ZODB3/ instead. Unused BuildRequires should not just be commented out. Remove them if they are invalid. The packages for python-zope-proxy and python-zdaemon are not available in rawhide, so this package can't be properly reviewed yet. Source should not be modified in %prep; it is a kind of build process and belongs in %build. Has this problem with invalid hash-bangs been filed and discussed upstream? I am not familiar with CFLAGS combined with setup.py. I assume that the right flags from python-devel is used automatically. I think the python-numeric package is similar to this one in many ways, and even though it does many things wrong it can perhaps be used for reference: It do not list CFLAGS. Can you reference any documentation or prior art from other packages? The mv code in %install seems overly complex and clever. Couldn't it be written as mv $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/{fsdump,fsoids,fsrefs,fstail,mkzeoinst,repozo,runzeo,zeoctl,zeopack,zeopasswd} \ $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libexecdir}/%{name}/ or just mv $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/* $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libexecdir}/%{name}/ ? A %check section should either be there or not - not just contain a disabled checkout without further comments. When building I notice an error which should be fixed: byte-compiling /home/mk/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/python-ZODB3-3.9.0-0.1.a7.fc12.i386/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ZEO/scripts/zeoserverlog.py to zeoserverlog.pyc SyntaxError: ('invalid syntax', ('/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ZEO/scripts/zeoserverlog.py', 374, 6, ' as = []\n')) rpmlint output: python-ZODB3.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/persistent/*.[ch] python-ZODB3.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/BTrees/*.[ch] python-ZODB3.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/python2.6/ZODB3/*.h 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 34 warnings. The include files should perhaps go to a -devel package, and I guess the rest of the files shouldn't be there at all. /usr/include/python2.6/ZODB3 should be in a package which requires python-devel which owns /usr/include/python2.6/ It seems like this package contains 4 quite independent python modules. Consider putting them in independent packages: python-BTrees python-persistent python-ZEO python-ZODB Hmm ... this brief review ends up being longer than the spec. IMHO there are too many issues here. The packager should have worked more with the package before filing a review request. -- 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