[Bug 688659] Review Request: thunarx-python - Python bindings for the Thunar Extension Framework

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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=688659

--- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-03-19 16:38:17 EDT ---
OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name. 
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. 
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. 
See below - License
See below- License field in spec matches
See below- License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
6154df9ab701ec3aba6de251011a3d00  thunarx-python-0.2.3.tar.bz2
6154df9ab701ec3aba6de251011a3d00  thunarx-python-0.2.3.tar.bz2.rpm

See below - BuildRequires correct
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. 
OK - Package has a correct %clean section. 
OK - Package has correct buildroot
OK - Package is code or permissible content. 
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. 
OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install

See below - .la files are removed. 

OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. 
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. 
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. 
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. 
OK - Package obey's FHS standard (except for 2 exceptions)
See below - No rpmlint output. 
See below - final provides and requires are sane.

SHOULD Items:

OK - Should build in mock. 
OK - Should build on all supported archs
OK - Should function as described. 
OK - Should have sane scriptlets. 
OK - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. 
OK - Should have dist tag
OK - Should package latest version
OK - Should not use file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or
/usr/sbin

Issues: 

1. The license doesn't seem right in the spec file. 
Look at the head of the source files in the src/ 
directory. 

2. You have no %doc files. Would be good to add AUTHORS ChangeLog docs/ COPYING
NEWS README

3. There shouldn't be any need for the 
Requires: Thunar pygtk2 pygobject2 gnome-python2
line. When something is linked against things, rpm is smart enough to add the
requires
in for you. ;) 

4. You might want to build the gtk-doc's here. 
checking whether to build gtk-doc documentation... no
checking for gtkdoc-check... no
(Should be BuildRequires: gtk-doc and adding produced files)

5. The .la files are still there. You need to change
rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/*.la
to
rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/*/*.la
And make sure it's after the install call. 

6. rpmlint says: 
thunarx-python.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1-1
['0.2.3-1.fc16', '0.2.3-1']
thunarx-python.x86_64: W: no-documentation

The first, your version in the changelog is wrong. You have 0.1-1, but it
should be 0.2.3-1
The second will be fixed by adding docs. 

Remember to add a new changelog entry and change version to -2 when you fix the
above. 
Thanks!

-- 
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


[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]