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=553649 Garrett Holmstrom <gholms.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |gholms.fedora@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Garrett Holmstrom <gholms.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-01-16 00:07:00 EST --- I'm not an approved packager yet, so I'll give you an informal review in hopes that it will help. See below for rpmlint output ok - Package meets naming guidelines ok - Spec file matches base package name NO - Meets Packaging Guidelines ok - License (GPLv2 and Python) ok - 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: 7b291f04f68beba0e1b3b4285cee92ce rhn-custom-info-5.4.1.tar.gz 7b291f04f68beba0e1b3b4285cee92ce rhn-custom-info-5.4.1.tar.gz.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 NO - 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 na - Headers go in -devel package 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 (builds on f13 and el5) 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) na - 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 rhn-custom-info.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency rhnlib This is justified in the spec file. * Meets Packaging Guidelines 0%{?fedora} evaluates to 13 in Rawhide, so your condition on line 16 fails, causing the resulting rpm to Require up2date instead of yum-rhn-plugin. While yum-rhn-plugin still Provides it, perhaps you can fix it by changing the "==" to a ">=" in that condition so we don't have to rely on the Provides entry sticking around for dependency solving to work. python-optik died in el4 when Python 2.3 included it, and the Provides entry for it isn't in Fedora any more. That makes this package impossible to install on Rawhide. If you plan on building it for el3 I would make that Requires entry contingent on el3 or less. Otherwise I recommend just dropping it. * BuildRequires correct A build that require Python should BuildRequire python-devel instead of python. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires * File permissions are sane A couple files have g+w permissions: -rw-rw-r-- 2 root root 6766 Jan 15 22:41 /usr/share/rhn/custominfo/rhn-custom-info.pyc -rw-rw-r-- 2 root root 6766 Jan 15 22:41 /usr/share/rhn/custominfo/rhn-custom-info.pyo * Other comments What's with the '+' characters in front of the latest changelog entry? -- 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