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=611454 --- Comment #15 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-08-14 15:49:49 EDT --- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (BSD with advertising) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 231565f5e5d0389c6f3fe4bb6fc4d9f1 py-bcrypt-0.2.tar.gz 231565f5e5d0389c6f3fe4bb6fc4d9f1 py-bcrypt-0.2.tar.gz.orig OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - Package obey's FHS standard (except for 2 exceptions) See below - No rpmlint output. See below - final provides and requires are sane. SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. See below - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version OK - Should not use file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin Issues: 1. NOT a blocker, but the "%{__rm}" are pointless IMHO. I'd just suggest using 'rm'. 2. It's not required, but I would strongly advise you to use a %{?dist} tag. 3. rpmlint says: py-bcrypt.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/bcrypt/_bcrypt.so _bcrypt.so()(64bit) 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. I think that can be ignored. 4. Why the package_name global? It seems not needed at all now that setup has the name... -- 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