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=553769 --- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-01-20 15:19:17 EST --- Finally some time to work on this. This builds fine and rpmlint finds nothing to complain about. The spec is very clean. Nothing owns "%{python_sitelib}/euca2ools". Why not just "%{python_sitelib}/%{name}/" in the files list instead of the three separate lines you have now? That would get all of the files, solve the directory ownership problem and be two lines shorter. Note that the BuildRoot tag is not required for Fedora, nor is the "rm -rf" line at the start of %install. I would suggest that you remove these unless you plan to submit this package to EPEL and want to keep the same spec for all releases. (I'm guessing you don't, since you require python 2.5.) Consider not using versioned dependencies unless there exists a supported Fedora release that at some point had a version which is too old. For example, F10 shipped with m2crypto 0.19.1, so no supported Fedora release ever had a version old enough that the versioned dependency would matter. F10 shipped with python-boto 1.2a but was updated to 1.8d, so a versioned dependency makes sense there (if you intend to release this to F10). The reason this matters is that these dependencies often become quickly outdated, so years hence we wonder why there are versioned dependencies that have been satisfied for ages. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requires for further information. Why does this have any dependency on swig? I can't see where the code would call swig at runtime, and I don't see why it's required at build time. INSTALL says only that swig is needed to build the dependencies, but you're not building them. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: 87ed69dcb418427519020cdcf0616ce7caf5567e79c80287a2af63c139d04f48 euca2ools-1.1.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license (2-clause BSD -> BSD) * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (x86_64, rawhide). * package installs properly. * rpmlint is silent. ? final provides and requires: euca2ools = 1.1-3.fc13 = /usr/bin/env ? m2crypto >= 0.19.1 python(abi) = 2.6 ? python-boto >= 1.8d ? swig * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. Without the necessary infrastructure, I have no way to test this. X fails to own %{python_sitelib}/euca2ools. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. -- 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