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=617632 Ian Weller <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #11 from Ian Weller <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-08-04 15:42:37 EDT --- [ OK ] specfiles match: 4ee0f99434806215b64d2967eb9e4407 openstack-swift.spec 4ee0f99434806215b64d2967eb9e4407 openstack-swift.spec.1 [ OK ] source files match upstream: 6937c520d5db340bae8a63944e84174f swift-1.0.2.tar.gz 6937c520d5db340bae8a63944e84174f swift-1.0.2.tar.gz.1 [ OK ] package meets naming and versioning guidelines. [FAILED] spec is properly named, cleanly written, and uses macros consistently. You need to be using the new python_sitelib macro: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros I feel like using the %{name} macro for the other source files would be prudent. Descriptions for the subpackages should probably give a little bit of what they do. Neither of these are required, but it would be prudent. On line 129, you can use dos2unix instead of sed to fix the end-of-line-encoding warning (and I think that would be preferred). [ OK ] dist tag is present. [ OK ] build root is correct. [ OK ] license field matches the actual license. [ OK ] license is open source-compatible. [ OK ] license text included in package. [ OK ] latest version is being packaged. [ OK ] BuildRequires are proper. [ OK ] %clean is present. [ OK ] package builds in mock. You may have some issues with the Python 2.7 dependencies in F14/F15 when you eventually build this. [ OK ] package installs properly. [ OK ] rpmlint is silent. openstack-swift.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/run/swift swift openstack-swift-account.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/run/swift/account-server swift openstack-swift-auth.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/run/swift/auth-server swift openstack-swift-container.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/run/swift/container-server swift openstack-swift-object.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/run/swift/object-server swift openstack-swift-proxy.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/run/swift/proxy-server swift [ianweller@hovercraft REVIEW]$ rpmlint -I non-standard-uid non-standard-uid: A file in this package is owned by a non standard user. Standard users are: adm, amanda, apache, arpwatch, avahi, beagleindex, bin, clamav, condor, cyrus, daemon, dbus, desktop, distcache, dovecot, exim, fax, frontpage, ftp, games, gdm, gopher, haldaemon, halt, hsqldb, ident, jonas, ldap, lp, mail, mailman, mailnull, majordomo, mysql, named, netdump, news, nfsnobody, nobody, nocpulse, nscd, nslcd, ntp, nut, operator, oprofile, ovirt, pegasus, piranha, pkiuser, polkituser, postfix, postgres, prelude-manager, privoxy, puppet, pvm, qemu, quagga, radiusd, radvd, root, rpc, rpcuser, rpm, sabayon, saned, shutdown, smmsp, snortd, squid, sshd, sync, tcpdump, tomcat, tss, uucp, vcsa, vdsm, webalizer, wnn, xfs. This warning is ignorable. [ OK ] final provides and requires are sane [FAILED] %check is present and all tests pass: This is on line 156: # Remove tests rm -fr %{buildroot}/%{python_sitelib}/test Are these tests that can be run in %check? [ OK ] owns the directories it creates. [ OK ] doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. [ OK ] no duplicates in %files. [ OK ] file permissions are appropriate. [ OK ] scriptlets match those on ScriptletSnippets page. Line 180: I would have it say "OpenStack Swift Daemons". For the condrestart lines, I would assume that that's OK for this package, but I would also want to check explicitly with upstream to see if that makes sense. [ OK ] %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. I OK'd the dependency stuff knowing that this bug was blocking on an update to python-eventlet, which is happening. -- 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