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=661272 --- Comment #1 from Chris Lumens <clumens@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-12-16 15:59:43 EST --- One quick note first: It looks like you forgot to package the lorax/src/bin/lorax script. This is likely because it's commented out in lorax/setup.py, and then you'll also need to add a blurb to the .spec file too. Mandatory review guidelines: !! - rpmlint output lorax.src: W: invalid-url Source0: lorax-0.1.tar.bz2 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. ok - Package meets naming guidelines ok - Spec file name matches base package name ok - License is acceptable (GPLv2+) ok - License field in spec is correct !! - License files included in package %docs or not included in upstream source Please include the COPYING file (and preferably the other documentation-type files in the top level of the source) in the package. You do this with "%doc COPYING AUTHORS ...". na - 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 !! - Build succeeds on at least one supported platform The build succeeds, but this should be a noarch package (BuildArch: noarch). That would also get rid of the useless -debuginfo package. ok - Build succeeds on all supported platforms or has ExcludeArch + bugs filed no - BuildRequires correct You need to BuildRequires: python{2,3}-devel as appropriate for the system. ok - Package handles locales with %find_lang This is fine for now since lorax does not yet have translated strings. na - %post, %postun call ldconfig if package contains shared .so files na - No bundled system libs na - Relocatability is justified ok - Package owns all directories it creates na - 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 na - Missing %doc files do not affect runtime na - Headers go in -devel package na - Static libs go in -static package na - Unversioned .so files go in -devel package na - Devel packages require base with fully-versioned dependency na - 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 na - Translations of description, Summary ok - Builds in mock ok - Builds on all supported platforms ok - Functions as described na - Scriptlets are sane na - 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 Once you have the /usr/sbin/lorax program in the package, it would be nice (but not required) to also have a man page. 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 no - Correct BuildRoot tag on < F10/EL6 You don't need BuildRoot anymore. no - Correct %clean section on < F13/EL6 You don't need a %clean section anymore. !! - Requires correct, justified where necessary Please audit the commands you call out to and verify that the packages containing those programs are listed as Requires. ok - Summary, description do not use trademarks incorrectly no - All relevant documentation is packaged, tagged appropriately See above. na - %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise na - Package with .pc files Requires pkgconfig on < EL6 no - Useful -debuginfo package or disabled and justified See above. na - No static executables na - Rpath absent or only used for internal libs no - Config files marked with %config %{_sysconfdir}/lorax/lorax.conf should be marked as a config file to avoid it being overwritten on upgrade. no - %config files marked noreplace or justified See above. !! - No %config files under /usr Should /usr/share/lorax/ramdisk.ltmpl be installed into /etc/lorax instead? Is it expected to be modified by the user? 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 na - Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time ok - Spec uses %{SOURCE#} instead of $RPM_SOURCE_DIR or %{sourcedir} na - %global instead of %define where appropriate na - Package containing translations BuildRequires gettext na - 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 na - Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified Python Guidelines: !! - Runtime Requires correct See above. ok - Python macros declared on < F13/EL6 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