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=574586 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-12-03 13:33:41 EST --- I don't really do anything relating to EPEL, but this has been sitting around for so long and my attempts to get someone to look at it have failed, so I'll take care of it as best I can. Builds fine in a CentOS5 mock buildroot (no RHEL5 for me; hopefully it doesn't matter). rpmlint says: python26-psycopg2.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/psycopg2/_psycopg.so _psycopg.so()(64bit) which were this Fedora I'd say needs to be filtered. However, the filtering infrastructure doesn't appear to be present in RHEL5 The %pyver macro seems to be defined, but not used. In Fedora, uses of %define should generally be changed to %global. (I checked a couple of other python26 reviews and some use %global while yours seem to use %define. I'm not sure if there's a reason for that.) You're right, the license tag on the python-psycopg2 package is definitely wrong. In F13 it's "GPLv2+ with exceptions" which doesn't appear to be correct, and in rawhide it's just "LGPLv3" which is also incorrect. I just went ahead and fixed it. I am assuming that you are sticking with 2.0.14 instead of updating to the latest version for reasons relating to the age of RHEL5. If you wish to package the current instead, just push another package and I'll take a look. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: 902607cdbe1195a00694d2b477eed8429eda433caaa0eb6ff7f80883e1c17ac7 psycopg2-2.0.14.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * package builds in mock (x86_64, EL5). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints (for EL5, at least). * final provides and requires are sane: python26-psycopg2-2.0.14-2.el5.x86_64.rpm _psycopg.so()(64bit) python26-psycopg2 = 2.0.14-2.el5 = libpq.so.4()(64bit) libpython2.6.so.1.0()(64bit) python26-psycopg2-doc-2.0.14-2.el5.x86_64.rpm python26-psycopg2-doc = 2.0.14-2.el5 = python26-psycopg2 = 2.0.14-2.el5 * no bundled libraries. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files * code, not content. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. -- 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