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=544630 Tomáš Bžatek <tbzatek@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tbzatek@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #4 from Tomáš Bžatek <tbzatek@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-01-07 12:10:40 EDT --- Uh oh, somebody else did the review meanwhile I was working on it... here are my findings anyway, kinda same as Joshua's :-) source files match upstream: ok package meets naming and versioning guidelines: ok specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently: ok dist tag is present: ok build root is correct: ok license field matches the actual license: the spec file says LGPLv2+ while most of the files are LGPLv2-only license is open source-compatible: ok license text included in package: yes latest version is being packaged: ok BuildRequires are proper: yes compiler flags are appropriate: none, ok %clean is present: ok package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64): ok debuginfo package looks complete: no, please see below rpmlint is silent: no, please see below final provides and requires look sane: ok no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths: ok, none owns the directories it creates: ok doesn't own any directories it shouldn't: ok no duplicates in %files: ok file permissions are appropriate: ok no scriptlets present: ok documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary: ok %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package: ok libtool archives: none, ok pc files: ok header files: ok static libs: none, ok Notes: - several source files in the 'pyatspi' directory contain portions of code under BSD license - builds fine in koji rpmlint output: pyatspi.x86_64: W: spelling-error-in-summary en_US spi pyatspi.x86_64: W: spelling-error-in-description en_US spi pyatspi.x86_64: W: spelling-error-in-description en_US assistive pyatspi.x86_64: E: no-binary pyatspi-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings. ignore the spelling errors, but there's another catch: looks like the .pth file is arch dependant (installed in /usr/lib64), we can't use noarch here. The no-binary error is justified, so is the empty-debuginfo-package error. I suggest to add "%global debug_package %{nil}" per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Debuginfo#Useless_or_incomplete_debuginfo_packages_due_to_other_reasons -- 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