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=521707 Kalev Lember <kalev@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Kalev Lember <kalev@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-06-19 20:37:35 EDT --- Fedora review python-zc.buildout-1.4.3-2.fc13.src.rpm 2010-06-20 + OK ! needs attention (In reply to comment #7) > python-zc.buildout.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary buildout > 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. > There is no upstream manpage and I'm not sure there should really be one. Yes, I also think there's no real need for a man page. Even Debian (usually very strict about man pages) doesn't have one for this package. + rpmlint warning can be ignored + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Naming Guildelines [1] say that a package must not use . as a separator, but I think it's OK in this case: - rpm / yum seems to handle it just fine - there are already a few packages which have . in their names (openoffice.org and java-1.6.0-openjdk for example) - upstream uses . in package name - debian also calls it python-zc.buildout [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageNamingGuidelines#Separators + Spec file name matches the base package name + The package follows the Packaging Guidelines + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The license field in the spec file matches the actual license n/a The package doesn't contain a separate license file and thus it's also not in %doc + Spec file is written in American English + Spec file is legible + Upstream sources match sources in the srpm. md5sum: 527cece8ca7ee087dc4e23360bbd9bcb zc.buildout-1.4.3.tar.gz 527cece8ca7ee087dc4e23360bbd9bcb Download/zc.buildout-1.4.3.tar.gz + The package builds in koji n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires look sane n/a The spec file handles locales properly + Package does not bundle copies of system libraries n/a Does not use Prefix: /usr + Package owns all directories it creates + No duplicate files in %files + Permissions are properly set and %files has %defattr + %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT + Consistent use of macros + Package contains code or permissible content n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + Files marked %doc should not affect package n/a Header files should be in -devel n/a Static libraries should be in -static n/a Library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base n/a Packages should not contain libtool .la files n/a Packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file + Packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages APPROVED -- 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