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=574531 Steve Traylen <steve.traylen@xxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |steve.traylen@xxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? Bug 574531 depends on bug 574506, which changed state. Bug 574506 Summary: Review Request: python26-distribute - the "Distribute" fork of setuptools for the python26 EPEL5 package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=574506 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |ERRATA --- Comment #3 from Steve Traylen <steve.traylen@xxxxxxx> 2010-06-28 18:32:40 EDT --- Sorry for the delay: One trivial item but important. Review: python26-nose: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=574531 Date: 29th June 2010. Mock Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2279023 * PASS: rpmlint output $ rpmlint SPECS/python26-nose.spec \ SRPMS/python26-nose-0.11.1-3.el5.src.rpm \ RPMS/noarch/python26-nose-0.11.1-3.el5.noarch.rpm 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. i.e clean. * PASS: Named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Yes python26 versioned nose .tar bal.. * PASS: spec file name same as base package %{name}. Yes * PASS: Packaging Guidelines. Yes * PASS: Approved license in .spec file. Yes. LGPLv2 * FAIL: License on Source code. Wrong, to me it is LGPLv2+ * PASS: Include LICENSE file or similar if it exist. lgpl.txt is included. * PASS: Written in American English. * PASS: Spec file legible. * PASS: Included source must match upstream source. $ md5sum nose-0.11.1.tar.gz ../SOURCES/nose-0.11.1.tar.gz 00789d016f81ec52f666f020c644447e nose-0.11.1.tar.gz 00789d016f81ec52f666f020c644447e ../SOURCES/nose-0.11.1.tar.gz * PASS: Build on one architecture. See koji * PASS: Not building on an architecture must highlighted. See koji. * PASS: Build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. See koji. * PASS: Handle locales properly. No locales. * PASS: ldconfig must be called on shared libs. No shared libs. * PASS: No bundled copies of system libraries. None. * PASS: Package must state why relocatable if relocatable. Not relocatable. * PASS: A package must own all directories that it creates Creates /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/nose but owns it. * PASS: No duplicate files in %files listings. none. * PASS: Permissions on files must be set properly. %defattr Indeed they are. * PASS: %clean section contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). Yes. * PASS: Each package must consistently use macros. Yes. * PASS: The package must contain code, or permissable content. Indeed it does. * PASS: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. No large docs. * PASS: %doc must not affect the runtime of the application. Nope. * PASS: Header files must be in a -devel package. None. * PASS: Static libraries must be in a -static package. None. * PASS: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' None. * PASS: Then library files that end in .so None. * PASS: devel packages must require the exact base package None. * PASS: No .la libtool archives None. * PASS: GUI apps should have %{name}.desktop file None. * PASS: No files or directories already owned by other packages. No. * PASS: %install must run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). It does. * PASS: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. They are. Summary: Fail: Please see the LPGLv2 vs LGPLv2+ above. -- 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