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=554187 Garrett Holmstrom <gholms.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |gholms.fedora@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #2 from Garrett Holmstrom <gholms.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-01-15 23:05:43 EST --- I'm not an approved packager yet, so I'll give you an informal review in hopes that it will help. See below - rpmlint output ok - Package meets naming guidelines ok - Spec file matches base package name NO - Meets Packaging Guidelines NO - License (GPLv3+ and MIT and Paul Hsieh Derivative) NO - License field in spec matches ok - License file included in package ok - Spec in American English ok - Spec is legible ok - Sources match upstream md5sum: 232885f019fda79a534c251ddd7e4c42 shedskin-0.3-1.tgz 232885f019fda79a534c251ddd7e4c42 shedskin-0.3-1.tgz.upstream NO - BuildRequires correct na - Spec handles locales/find_lang na - Package has .so files in %{_libdir} and runs ldconfig in %post and %postun ok - Package does not bundle system libs na - Package relocatability is justified ok - No duplicate files in %files ok - Spec has %defattr in each %files section ok - File permissions are sane ok - Spec has a correct %clean section ok - Spec has rm -rf %{buildroot} at top of %install ok - Spec has consistant macro usage ok - Package is code or permissible content ok - Spec has correct buildroot ok - File names valid UTF-8 ok - %doc files don't affect runtime no - Headers go in -devel package (Headers necessary for proper functioning) na - Static libs go in -static package ok - Package contains no .la files na - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file installed w/ desktop-file-install ok - Package owns all directories it creates ok - Package's files and directories don't conflict with others' ok - Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target ok - Compiles and builds on at least one arch ok - Compiles and builds on all archs or has ExcludeArch + bugs filed SHOULD Items: na - Query upstream for license inclusion no - Translations of description and summary ok - Builds in mock na - Builds on all supported archs (noarch) ok - Scriptlets are sane na - Non-devel subpackages require base w/ fully-versioned dependency na - pkgconfig (.pc) files go in -devel package ok - Latest version ok - Has dist tag ok - No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin ######################################## * rpmlint output shedskin.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/shedskin/lib/socket.cpp (previous message repeated for 47 other source files) shedskin.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.3-1 ['0.3.1-1.fc12', '0.3.1-1'] devel-file-in-non-devel-package is fine because this is a development tool that requires the headers and sources in question to function correctly. * Meets packaging guidelines The version you give in the changelog (0.3) doesn't match that of the package (0.3.1). In fact, I'm confused overall as to what the program's actual version number is. The tarball, readme, and Debian package indicate that it is 0.3, while the version given in the spec file is 0.3.1. If this is a svn checkout of a post-0.3 tree, the Release field should indicate so. * License Portions of a couple sources seem to have licenses other than GPLv3+. - shedskin/lib/time.cpp: LGPLv2.1+ - shedskin/lib/builtin.cpp: Paul Hsieh derivative license The Paul Hsieh derivative license is not allowed in Fedora. However, the LICENSING file gives MIT licenses for most everything in shedskin/lib; were those portions of the code relicensed? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Bad_Licenses * License field in spec matches Most files in shedskin/lib are MIT-licensed according to the LICENSING file, but the License field does not reflect this. * BuildRequires correct Since you're providing a setuptools egg you need BuildRequires: python-setuptools-devel http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python/Eggs#Providing_Eggs_using_Setuptools -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review