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=620166 manuel wolfshant <wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from manuel wolfshant <wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-08-02 09:00:32 EDT --- Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested on: koji scratch build for F13 [x] Rpmlint output: source RPM: python-Chaco.src: W: invalid-license Public domain =>Please use "Public Domain" instead ( capital D) python-Chaco.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean python-Chaco.src: W: no-buildroot-tag python-Chaco.src: W: no-%clean-section => no problem if not building for the older distros binary RPM: python-Chaco.x86_64: W: invalid-license Public domain => will be fixed together with the one from src. [x] Package is not relocatable. [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type:BSD and Public Domain [!] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. => there is an additional license file in enthought/chaco which should be included [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. SHA1SUM of source file: 6ba2e2f90e5409cb22b1e429dcbbeded6c3df978 Chaco-3.3.1.tar.gz [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly. [x] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package consistently uses macros. [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x] Final provides and requires are sane. === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [x] Latest version is packaged. [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: koji scratch build [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Tested on:koji scratch build for F13 [?] Package functions as described. [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct. [-] File based requires are sane. [-] %check is present and the test passes. === Issues === Please fix the license related issues before importing. === Final Notes === Which package is owning /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/enthought ? yum provides lists a whole bunch... Using that weird mv / find / mv combination is not illegal, but I'd rather see that find fixed, too. Even if you do not like the print0 argument :) APPROVED ( despite the ugly way to remove DOS line endings ) -- 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