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=579514 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-04-10 00:28:55 EDT --- Here is the full review. There are a few suggestions/warnings (!), and two blockers (*): - rpmlint is clean ! Group tag should probably be "System Environment/Libraries" * DS_Store files need to be removed in %prep as per the guidelines. Maybe the whole packaging/ directory should be removed? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#No_inclusion_of_pre-built_binaries_or_libraries ! CHANGELOG file, and tests/ directorf might be packaged as %doc. ! We prefer %defattr(-,root,root, -) most of the time ! Simply "python" can be used instead of %{__python} for macro consistency. Or "%{__rm}" can be used instead of "rm". ! The package provides _portaudio.so(). I hope this doesn't result in a conflict. * Python guidelines changed a bit recently. Accordingly, * We need to use BuildRequires: python2-devel ! Also please check the macros section in the new guidelines. - I think the rest is fine. But as I am not that familiar with the new python packaging guidelines, I advise you to go through the page once. We might have missed something. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python -- 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