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=605423 Christian Krause <chkr@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |chkr@xxxxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |chkr@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Christian Krause <chkr@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-07-02 18:08:54 EDT --- Here is the full review for the latest package: * rpmlint: TODO (minor) rpmlint RPMS/i686/python-dulwich-* SRPMS/python-dulwich-0.6.0-2.fc12.src.rpm SPECS/python-dulwich.spec python-dulwich.i686: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/python-dulwich-0.6.0/docs/tutorial/test.py python-dulwich.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dul-web python-dulwich.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dul-daemon python-dulwich.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dulwich In general the rpmlint output is OK, probably it would be better to remove the +x permission from test.py just to keep rpmlint silent. It should be no problem just to use "python test.py" whenever someone tries out the example from the tutorial. * naming: TODO - name does not match upstream: Is there a specific reason why the name was altered to python-dulwich instead of using plain dulwich? - spec file name matches package name * License: OK - license file packaged - GPLv2+ acceptable - license matches sources * specfile in American English and legible: OK * %description: OK * Sources: OK - Source0 URL ok - spectool -g python-dulwich.spec works - sources matches upstream - md5sum: ea3ed7198ce154cf05784a3f75b4013f dulwich-0.6.0.tar.gz * Python requirements: - BR: python-devel: OK - set python_sitearch when including arch-specific libraries: OK * Compilation: TODO - package does not build in koji - you have to add python-nose as BR for the tests * debuginfo sub-package: OK - non-empty * BuildRequires: TODO (see Compilation) * Requires: TODO - the used command for filtering out unwanted dependencies will probably remove too many provides/requires ("grep -v %{srcname}") - something like "grep -v -E '(_objects.so|_pack.so)' should be better * Locales handling: OK (n/a) * shared/static libs, pkgconfig/header/*.la files: OK (n/a) * packages must own all directories: OK * files not listed twice: OK * permissions of files: OK - %defattr used - final file permissions OK * %clean section: OK * macro usage: OK * code vs. content: OK (no content) * large documentation into subpackage: OK (n/a) * GUI application needs %{name}.desktop: OK (n/a) * no directories owned which are already owned by other packages: OK * rm -rf %{buildroot} at the beginning of %{install}: OK * all file names UTF8: OK * functional test: ?? - dulwich itself works fine - dul-daemon works for some local git clones, but does not for others (I could not clone from them.) - dul-web did not work for me Since the client functionality seems to work quite ok, I think these bugs should not block the review. However it would be good if you could report them upstream - with luck upstream can provide some bug fixes short-term. * Scriptlets: OK (n/a) -- 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