Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: galternatives - Alternatives Configurator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220860 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-12-30 02:36 EST ------- Your patch works well, thanks. Then, first full review for galternatives * General notes for python related packages - Unlike shared libraries' dependencies, python related dependencies are not checked automatically by rpmbuild and these have to be looked into manually. Normally, this can be done by checking what modules this package has to import. For this package ------------------------------------------------------------ [tasaka1@localhost ~]$ grep import /usr/sbin/galternatives `rpm -ql galternatives | grep py$` /usr/sbin/galternatives:import os, sys /usr/sbin/galternatives:import galternatives /usr/sbin/galternatives:from galternatives import gtk /usr/sbin/galternatives:import gettext /usr/sbin/galternatives:from galternatives.common import PACKAGE /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/galternatives/__init__.py:from main import * /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/galternatives/alternative.py:from common import PACKAGE /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/galternatives/alternative.py:import os, gettext /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/galternatives/alternative.py:from gadebug import print_debug /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/galternatives/main.py:import pygtk /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/galternatives/main.py: import gtk, gobject /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/galternatives/main.py: from gtk import glade /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/galternatives/main.py:from common import PACKAGE /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/galternatives/main.py:import sys, os, gettext /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/galternatives/main.py:from alternative import Alternative ------------------------------------------------------------ This means that this package needs "Requires: pygtk2" Then A. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines * Licensing - Please include the license document. For this package, debian/copyright seems the best - Also, adding debian/changelog seems useful and should be included in the package. B. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines = This is okay, except for issues on A C. Other notes: - For upstream URL: Maybe http://packages.qa.debian.org/g/galternatives.html is more useful? - I think this package to be useful, however, how do you think of http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=365365 ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review