Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-gpod - A python module to access iPod content Alias: python-gpod-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217066 ------- Additional Comments From jspaleta@xxxxxxxxx 2006-11-24 23:33 EST ------- Since I cannot sponsor the requester, I can not do the formal review of this package. Below I provide my informal review of python-gpod-0.4.0-2.fc7.src.rpm that the sponsering reviewer can look over. I don't see any blockers, see my comments about non-critical specfile style after my review checklist. I will be attempting to test this binding with editted versions of the example scripts provideed in the %docs section. GOOD: Builds in mock against fedora-development-i386 target GOOD: rpmlint runs clean against python-gpod-0.4.0-2.fc7.i386.rpm GOOD: Follows naming guidelines for python packaging. GOOD: the spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec GOOD: the package is licensed LGPL GOOD: the License field matches the actual license. GOOD: COPYING file is included in %doc GOOD: Spec file is written in American English GOOD: Spec file is reasonably legible GOOD: Spec URL points to correct upstream project page GOOD: Included source tarball matches upstream source listed in spec SOURCE0 md5sum: e427e0409b0cb2d7e76b17915b1396fa libgpod-0.4.0.tar.gz GOOD: Locales are not handled in this package. The Locale information is handled in the lingpod package in Core. This package just handled the python bindings which are not currently packaged by Core. GOOD: no shared libraries in linkers default path. GOOD: no request for relocatable packaging GOOD: Package owns all directories it creates. GOOD: No duplicate files in %file GOOD: Permissions are set correctly GOOD: %clean section GOOD: Consistent use of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT GOOD: No significant 'content' in package GOOD: no -docs packagable material GOOD: %docs section holds non-critical examples and COPYING file GOOD: no -devel packagable material GOOD: no .la files included GOOD: no gui applications included GOOD: no duplicate ownership of payload files according to repoquery GOOD: BuildRequires section in spec looks good, SPECFILE NOTES: the sed script to strip the #!/usr/bin/env python line from gtkpod is fine and is technically correct since gtkpod.py is not meant to be run as a standalone executable. Would this be better done as a patch file? The sed script is really simple so I'm not inclined to say this must be done as a patch file. Its a technically correct but inherently cosmetic change. The multiple rm statements in the %install section serve the purpose of excluding files provided in the Core libgpod package. This could be done with a set of %exclude statements in the %files section, but I don't think there is a requirement to choose either style over the other. -jef -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review