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=675628 Steve Traylen <steve.traylen@xxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Steve Traylen <steve.traylen@xxxxxxx> 2011-02-14 13:58:11 EST --- Review of EPEL5 only python-jinga, bug #675628 Builds in an EPEL5 mock okay. - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/epel-5-x86_64/result/*.rpm python26-jinja2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sandboxed -> sandboxes, sand boxed, sand-boxed python26-jinja2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US templating -> contemplating, template's, template python26-jinja2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sandboxed -> sandboxes, sand boxed, sand-boxed python26-jinja2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US templating -> contemplating, template's, template python26-jinja2.src:2: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. The last is fine for python26 package where it can't easily be determined dynamically and spec file is very hard coded anyway to python2.6. sandboxed and templating are both verbisms so okay. - Spec file matches base package name. It does. - Spec has consistant macro usage. Yes. - Meets Packaging Guidelines. Yes. - License BSD - License field in spec matches 3 clause BSD, all files contain ":license: BSD.". - License file included in package LICENSE file included. - Spec in American English It is. - Spec is legible. It Is. - Sources match upstream md5sum: $ md5sum Jinja2-2.5.5.tar.gz ../SOURCES/Jinja2-2.5.5.tar.gz 83b20c1eeb31f49d8e6392efae91b7d5 Jinja2-2.5.5.tar.gz 83b20c1eeb31f49d8e6392efae91b7d5 ../SOURCES/Jinja2-2.5.5.tar.gz - Package needs ExcludeArch It does. - BuildRequires correct They are. - Spec handles locales/find_lang None present. - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. Not relocatable. - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. They are. - Package has a correct %clean section. Yep. - Package has correct buildroot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) - Doc subpackage needed/used. Not needed. - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. They don't/ - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. Mock build - Package has no duplicate files in %files. It does not. - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. Nope. - Package owns all the directories it creates. It does. - final provides and requires are sane: $ for i in *rpm; do echo $i; rpm -qp --provides $i; echo =; rpm -qp --requires $i; echo; done python26-jinja2-2.5.5-4.el5.noarch.rpm python26-jinja2 = 2.5.5-4.el5 = python26-babel >= 0.8 python26-markupsafe python26-jinja2-2.5.5-4.el5.src.rpm = python26-devel python26-distribute python26-markupsafe Looks good to me. SHOULD Items: - Should build in mock. It does. - Should build on all supported archs It's no arch. - Should function as described. Test suite runs. - Should have sane scriptlets. None needed. - Should have dist tag It does. - Should package latest version 2.5.5 is latests. Issues: NONE Straightforward python package - approved. Thanks for the package. -- 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