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=648987 --- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2010-11-17 11:45:10 EST --- - For this package as well I strongly recommend using the upstream name "pysmbc" as the package name. python3-smbc.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libsmbclient -> clientship, Lilienthal, liquefacient python3-smbc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libsmbclient -> clientship, Lilienthal, liquefacient python3-smbc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pysmbc -> paroxysm, platysma python3-smbc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US config -> con fig, con-fig, configure python3-smbc.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/python3-smbc-1.0.10/TODO python3-smbc.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python3.1/site-packages/smbc.so 0775L python-smbc.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libsmbclient -> clientship, Lilienthal, liquefacient python-smbc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libsmbclient -> clientship, Lilienthal, liquefacient python-smbc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pysmbc -> paroxysm, platysma python-smbc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US config -> con fig, con-fig, configure python-smbc.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install python-smbc.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean python-smbc.src: W: no-buildroot-tag python-smbc.src: W: no-%clean-section python-smbc.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libsmbclient -> clientship, Lilienthal, liquefacient python-smbc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libsmbclient -> clientship, Lilienthal, liquefacient python-smbc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pysmbc -> paroxysm, platysma python-smbc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US config -> con fig, con-fig, configure python-smbc.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/smbc.so smbc.so()(64bit) python-smbc.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/smbc.so 0775L python-smbc.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/python-smbc-1.0.10/TODO 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 17 warnings. - Drop the empty TODO from %doc, fix perms and fix the private-shared-object-provides. - Compilation shows smbcmodule.c: In function 'PyInit_smbc': smbcmodule.c:70:5: warning: 'return' with no value, in function returning non-void smbcmodule.c:75:5: warning: 'return' with no value, in function returning non-void smbcmodule.c:80:5: warning: 'return' with no value, in function returning non-void smbcmodule.c:85:5: warning: 'return' with no value, in function returning non-void which might be a problem. Better contact upstream? - You can replace all occurrences of pushd %{py3dir} make popd with make -C %{py3dir} and so on. - Nitpick: first you use %defattr(-,root,root), then and %defattr(-,root,root,-). These are, of course, equal. - In this package, too, I would recommend using the usual python build commands. The build flags are OK, though. *** MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. OK MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. OK MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK 72cc12d6c037c68ca81355151a58083b pysmbc-1.0.10.tar.bz2 72cc12d6c037c68ca81355151a58083b ../SOURCES/pysmbc-1.0.10.tar.bz2 MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. OK MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. NEEDSWORK - Split html/ to -doc. MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. OK - Maybe add PKG-INFO to %doc? MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK -- 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