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=655527 Steve Traylen <steve.traylen@xxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |steve.traylen@xxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |steve.traylen@xxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Steve Traylen <steve.traylen@xxxxxxx> 2010-11-23 13:21:48 EST --- rpmlint output. pyside-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rcc -> cc, rec, acc pyside-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uic -> uric, sic, tic pyside-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lupdate -> update, l update, lapidate pyside-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pyside-uic pyside-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pyside-rcc pyside-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pyside-lupdate pyside-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rcc -> cc, rec, acc pyside-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uic -> uric, sic, tic pyside-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lupdate -> update, l update, lapidate 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. which is all fine. - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines Yes tar ball called pyside-tools - Spec file matches base package name. It does. - Spec has consistant macro usage. It does. - Meets Packaging Guidelines. No, in particular private ElementTree. - License GPLv2 and MIT and there is a comment about this duality. - License field in spec matches it's GPL3 except element tree, see below. Also pysideuic appears to be dual GPL and BSD. - License file included in package Yes. - Spec in American English - Spec is legible. - Sources match upstream md5sum: $ curl -q http://www.pyside.org/files/pyside-tools-0.2.2.tar.bz2 | md5sum - ../SOURCES/pyside-tools-0.2.2.tar.bz2 5fe207cd8cd16ddbb033533fe7528011 - 5fe207cd8cd16ddbb033533fe7528011 ../SOURCES/pyside-tools-0.2.2.tar.bz2 - Package needs ExcludeArch Builds okay in mock so no. - BuildRequires correct Builds in mock and nothing excessive. - Spec handles locales/find_lang Nothing to localed - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. Not relocatable. - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. They are indeed. - Package has a correct %clean section. It does. - Package has correct buildroot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Yep. - Package is code or permissible content. Yes. - Doc subpackage needed/used. Not needed. - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. They don't - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. Not relavent. - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun Not relavent. - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig Not relavent. - .so files in -devel subpackage. Not relavent. - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} Not relavent. - .la files are removed. Not relavent. - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file Not relavent. - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. Koji build. - Package has no duplicate files in %files. Nope. - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. Nope. - Package owns all the directories it creates. /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/pysideuic is owned. - final provides and requires are sane: rpm -qp --provides pyside-tools-0.2.2-1.fc13.x86_64.rpm pyside-tools = 0.2.2-1.fc13 pyside-tools(x86-64) = 0.2.2-1.fc13 requires are qt libs, and python-abi = 2.6 so fine. SHOULD Items: - Should build in mock. Koji build - Should build on all supported archs Koji build - Should function as described. - Should have sane scriptlets. - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. - Should have dist tag - Should package latest version - check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews) Issues: 1. pysideuic/elementtree/ElementTree.py at a quick look to looks to be a copy of $ rpm -qf /usr/lib64/python2.6/xml/etree/ElementTree.py python-2.6.4-27.fc13.x86_64 Can the private copy be removed and this also would allow you to drop a license maybe. 2. It seems the pysideuic is BSD as well. Can this be reflected in the License tag. I might worth a comment stating which part of the code is LICENSE-rcc and which is LICENSE-uic. Of course this could be split into subpackages with different licenses which I believe is the recommended way in the guidelines. -- 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