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=691894 Garrett Holmstrom <gholms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |gholms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Garrett Holmstrom <gholms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-06-08 17:01:35 EDT --- Review of pyrit-0.4.0-1.fc15: The dump files and dictionary in pyrit-0.4.0/test are considered content, but the license under which they are distributable is unclear. I recommend asking upstream for clarification. If the license is acceptable, is the content itself considered acceptable for inclusion in a Fedora SRPM? Packaging-wise, please fix the permissions and RPM Provides of _cpyrit_cpu.so. AFAIK the build also needs to either honor Fedora's CFLAGS or justify its failure to do so. Note that distutils respects the CFLAGS environment variable. The remaining issues, specifically man pages and translations, are optional. See below for a full review. Mandatory review guidelines: NO - rpmlint output pyrit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee pyrit.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://pyrit.googlecode.com/files/pyrit-0.4.0.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found pyrit.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee pyrit.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/cpyrit/_cpyrit_cpu.so _cpyrit_cpu.so()(64bit) pyrit.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/cpyrit/_cpyrit_cpu.so 0775L pyrit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pyrit -- The spelling-error and invalid-url complaints appear to be bogus. ok - Package meets naming guidelines ok - Spec file name matches base package name ok - License is acceptable (GPLv3+ with exceptions) ok - License field in spec is correct The file "pyrit" has no license header; assuming GPLv3+ ok - License files included in package %docs or not included in upstream source ok - 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 Upstream MD5: 7258b6f3dacfb09736ddeed2a379df2d pyrit-0.4.0.tar.gz Your MD5: 7258b6f3dacfb09736ddeed2a379df2d pyrit-0.4.0.tar.gz ok - Build succeeds on at least one supported platform ok - Build succeeds on all supported platforms or has ExcludeArch + bugs filed ok - BuildRequires correct -- - Package handles locales with %find_lang -- - %post, %postun call ldconfig if package contains shared .so files ok - No bundled system libs -- - Relocatability is justified ok - Package owns all directories it creates ok - Package requires other packages for directories it uses but does not own ok - No duplicate files in %files unless necessary for license files NO - File permissions are sane -rwxrwxr-x /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/cpyrit/_cpyrit_cpu.so ok - Each %files section contains %defattr ok - Consistent use of macros NO - Sources contain only permissible code or content test/*.gz has no associated content license. -- - Large documentation files go in -doc package ok - Missing %doc files do not affect runtime -- - Headers go in -devel package -- - Static libs go in -static package -- - Unversioned .so files go in -devel package -- - Devel packages require base with fully-versioned dependency ok - Package contains no .la files -- - 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: no - Query upstream about including license files No license for test/*.gz no - Translations of description, Summary ok - Builds in mock ok - Builds on all supported platforms ok - Functions as described -- - Scriptlets are sane -- - Non-devel subpackage Requires are sane -- - .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 ok - Package with test-suite executes it in %check section Packaging guidelines: ok - Has dist tag ok - Useful without external bits ok - Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir, /usr/target, /run -- - Programs launched before FS mounting use /run instead of /var/run -- - Binaries in /bin, /sbin do not depend on files in /usr ok - Changelog in prescribed format ok - Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags no - Correct BuildRoot tag on < F10/EL6 This prevents building for epel-5. no - Correct %clean section on < F13/EL6 This prevents building for epel-5. ok - Requires correct, justified where necessary ok - Summary, description do not use trademarks incorrectly ok - All relevant documentation is packaged, tagged appropriately ok - Documentation files do not have executable permissions NO - %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise Note that distutils respects the CFLAGS environment variable. -- - Package with .pc files Requires pkgconfig on < EL6 ok - Useful -debuginfo package or disabled and justified ok - No static executables ok - Rpath absent or only used for internal libs -- - Config files marked with %config -- - %config files marked noreplace or justified -- - No %config files under /usr -- - SysV-style init script ok - Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded directory names when appropriate ok - Spec uses macros for executables only when configurability is needed -- - %makeinstall used only when ``make install DESTDIR=...'' doesn't work ok - Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time -- - Spec uses %{SOURCE#} instead of $RPM_SOURCE_DIR or %{sourcedir} ok - %global instead of %define where appropriate -- - Package containing translations BuildRequires gettext -- - File timestamps preserved by file ops -- - Parallel make ok - Spec does not use Requires(pre,post) notation -- - User, group creation handled correctly (See Packaging:UsersAndGroups) -- - Web app files go in /usr/share/%{name}, not /var/www -- - Conflicts are justified ok - No external kernel modules ok - No files in /srv ok - One project per package -- - Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified -- - Packages needing dirs in /var/run or /var/lock use tmpfiles.d on >= F15 Python guidelines: ok - Runtime Requires correct ok - Python macros declared on < F13/EL6 ok - All .py files packaged with .pyc, .pyo counterparts ok - Includes .egg-info files/directories when generated NO - Provides/Requires properly filtered _cpyrit_cpu.so must be filtered from Provides. -- - 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