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=554187 --- Comment #26 from Garrett Holmstrom <gholms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-12-16 14:47:02 EST --- Looks like attaching reviews causes more problems than it solves, so here's a copy of the whole thing: This is a review of proposed package shedskin-0.7-1.fc15. Spec file: http://tomspur.fedorapeople.org/review/shedskin.spec Source RPM: http://tomspur.fedorapeople.org/review/shedskin-0.7-1.fc13.src.rpm Mandatory review guidelines: ok - rpmlint output devel-file-in-non-devel-package justified by development tool exception ok - Package meets naming guidelines ok - Spec file name matches base package name ok - License is acceptable (GPLv3 and (MIT and Python)) NO - License field in spec is correct The shedskin binary is GPLv3, while the libraries are MIT and Python. ok - License files included in package %docs or not included in upstream source ok - License files installed when any subpackage combination is installed ok - Spec written in American English ok - Spec is legible ok - Sources match upstream unless altered to fix permissibility issues Upstream MD5: 0cd084152d8d2ddd719bf79572804e22 shedskin-0.7.tgz Your MD5: 0cd084152d8d2ddd719bf79572804e22 shedskin-0.7.tgz No idea why rpmlint has trouble fetching the tarball; it works for me. ok - Build succeeds on at least one supported platform ok - Build succeeds on all supported platforms or has ExcludeArch + bugs filed ok - BuildRequires correct na - Package handles locales with %find_lang na - %post, %postun call ldconfig if package contains shared .so files ok - No bundled system libs bundled(murmurhash) justified by FPC na - Relocatability is justified ok - Package owns all directories it creates ok - Package requires other packages for directories it uses but does not own ok - No duplicate files in %files unless necessary for license files ok - File permissions are sane ok - Each %files section contains %defattr ok - Consistent use of macros ok - Sources contain only permissible code or content na - Large documentation files go in -doc package ok - Missing %doc files do not affect runtime ok - Headers go in -devel package Development tool exception na - Static libs go in -static package na - Unversioned .so files go in -devel package na - Devel packages require base with fully-versioned dependency ok - Package contains no .la files na - GUI app installs .desktop file w/ desktop-file-install or has justification ok - Package's files and directories don't conflict with others' or justified ok - File names are valid UTF-8 Optional review guidelines: na - Query upstream about including license files no - Translations of description, Summary ok - Builds in mock ok - Builds on all supported platforms na - Scriptlets are sane ok - Non-devel subpackage Requires are sane na - .pc files go in -devel unless main package is a development tool ok - No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin no - Man pages included for all executables Packaging guidelines: ok - Has dist tag ok - Useful without external bits ok - Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target ok - Changelog in prescribed format ok - Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags ok - Correct BuildRoot tag on < F10/EL6 ok - Correct %clean section on < F13/EL6 ok - Requires correct, justified where necessary ok - Summary, description do not use trademarks incorrectly ok - All relevant documentation is packaged, tagged appropriately ok - %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise na - Package with .pc files Requires pkgconfig on < EL6 na - Useful -debuginfo package or disabled and justified ok - No static executables ok - Rpath absent or only used for internal libs ok - Config files marked with %config ok - %config files marked noreplace or justified ok - No %config files under /usr na - SysV-style init script ok - Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded directory names ok - %makeinstall used only when ``make install DESTDIR=...'' doesn't work ok - Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time ok - Spec uses %{SOURCE#} instead of $RPM_SOURCE_DIR or %{sourcedir} ok - %global instead of %define where appropriate na - Package containing translations BuildRequires gettext ok - File timestamps preserved by file ops na - Parallel make ok - Spec does not use Requires(pre,post) notation na - User, group creation handled correctly (See Packaging:UsersAndGroups) na - Web app files go in /usr/share/%{name}, not /var/www na - Conflicts are justified ok - No external kernel modules ok - No files in /srv ok - One project per package ok - Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified Python Guidelines: ok - Runtime Requires correct ok - Python macros declared on < F13/EL6 This package will not build on EL5 for this reason. ok - All .py files packaged with .pyc, .pyo counterparts ok - Includes .egg-info files/directories when generated ok - Provides/Requires properly filtered na - Code that invokes gtk.gdk.get_pixels_array() Requires numpy -- 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