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=611068 Ruediger Landmann <r.landmann@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |r.landmann@xxxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |r.landmann@xxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review?, | |needinfo?(fabian@bernewirel | |ess.net) --- Comment #1 from Ruediger Landmann <r.landmann@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-10-29 18:39:15 EDT --- Thanks Fabian; looks pretty good. rpmlint doesn't like the word "picklable", but this neologism is used upstream, so I don't see a problem here. It looks like Django needs the empty models.py file in order to load the app -- could you please confirm this before I approve this review? (a comment in the spec file would have been nice, to save me from researching this myself :) ) - = N/A / = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [/] Rpmlint output is clean: $ rpmlint SPECS/django-picklefield.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint SRPMS/django-picklefield-0.1.6-1.fc13.src.rpm django-picklefield.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US picklable -> pickle, picklock, pickerel 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/django-picklefield-0.1.6-1.fc13.noarch.rpm django-picklefield.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US picklable -> pickle, picklock, pickerel django-picklefield.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/picklefield/models.py 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. [/] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [/] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [/] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Language specific items [/] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [/] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: MIT [-] 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. [/] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [/] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. (md5sum: 915b25f06fa56245090eab00fd848624) [/] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2564620 [/] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch [/] 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 (with the %find_lang macro) [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [/] Package does not bundle copies of system libraries [/] Package is not relocatable. [/] Package must own all directories that it creates. [/] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [-] Permissions on files are set properly [/] %files section includes a %defattr(...) line [/] Package consistently uses macros. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [/] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] -devel packages require base package with full versioning. [/] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [/] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [/] Filenames are valid UTF-8 === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [/] 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. [/] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested through koji [/] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Tested on: f13 [/] Package functions as described. [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] Subpackages other than -devel require the base package as a fully versioned dependency [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct (normally in -devel) [-] File based requires are sane. [-] Package contains man pages for binaries and scripts. -- 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