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=691635 --- Comment #4 from Ankur Sinha <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-03-29 04:29:06 EDT --- Thank you for the review. (In reply to comment #3) > Unofficial review: > > + = OK > - = NA > ? = issue > > + Package meets naming guidelines > + Spec file matches base package name. > ? Spec has consistent macro usage. > ? Meets Packaging Guidelines. > + License > + License field in spec matches > ? License file included in package > + Spec in American English > + Spec is legible. > - Sources match upstream md5sum: > > - Package needs ExcludeArch > ? BuildRequires correct > + Spec handles locales/find_lang > - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. > + Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. > + Package has a correct %clean section. > - Package has correct buildroot > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) > + Package is code or permissible content. > - Doc subpackage needed/used. > + Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. > > - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. > - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun > - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig > - .so files in -devel subpackage. > - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} > - .la files are removed. > > + Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file > > + Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. > + Package has no duplicate files in %files. > + Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. > - Package owns all the directories it creates. > - No rpmlint output. > ? final provides and requires are sane: > > > SHOULD Items: > > - Should build in mock. > - Should build on all supported archs > - Should function as described. > - Should have sane scriptlets. > - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. > + Should have dist tag > - Should package latest version > > Issues: > > 1. I'm not sure about the directory in which you located the py and pyc files > (seems wrong to me). Please read > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python for more information. I checked up on this already. I'm not sure either. As of now, the files are placed where the make script puts them. I'll contact upstream to confirm. > 2. Please ask upstream to include license in the git repository (and tarballs, > when upstream releases those) so that you can include the license file in your > package. I'll do that and include a license as a SOURCE: in the meantime. > 3. Missing build dependency: pygtk2 Weird, it built in mock correctly. > 4. Missing run-time dependencies: mobile-broadband-provider-info, ModemManager Do I need to specify explicit requires? > 5. You can use %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, but you CAN NOT not both in the > same spec. Read > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS > for more information. Corrected. > > Warnings: > 1. Clean section is not required for Fedora 13 and above. Removed. > > Please fix these issues, and update the spec and SRPM accordingly. Thanks, Ankur -- 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