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=717680 Chris Lalancette <clalance@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(clalance@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #3 from Chris Lalancette <clalance@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-07-06 10:24:18 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > [+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package > [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming > Guidelines > [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [...] > [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines > [-] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license > and meet the Licensing Guidelines > * Uses INSTALLED_FILES -- See first <!> in > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Byte_compiling . Please use > file globbing. Ah, I didn't know about that recommendation. Fixed now. > > [?] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the > actual license > I can't find the license anywhere in the source tarball. Would you be so kind > as to point out where the files are licensed as BSD? Unfortunately this project doesn't ship a separate LICENSE file. The BSD license is pointed out both in the setup.py and the PKG-INFO files. > > [?] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the > license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of > the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc As above, there is no separate license file. > [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. > [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. > [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream > source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for > this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, > please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. > [+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary > rpms on at least one primary architecture > [n/a] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on > an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the > spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST > have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package > does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST > be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line > [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except > for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging > Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply > common sense. > [n/a] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by > using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly > forbidden > [n/a] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared > library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's > default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. > [n/a] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must > state this fact in the request for review, along with the > rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without > this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. > [-] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does > not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package > which does create that directory. > * See above usage of INSTALLED_FILES Right, I think this should be fixed now. > > [+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files > listing. > [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should > be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section > must include a %defattr(...) line. > [+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf > %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). > [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. > [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. > [n/a] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The > definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but > is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or > quantity). > [n/a] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the > runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the > program must run properly if it is not present. > * note: Could docs/ or the generated readme be installed as %doc? docs/ by itself isn't very useful. However, you can use python-sphinx to build HTML documentation. I've updated the spec file to now build a separate -doc package with that stuff included. > > [n/a] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. > [n/a] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. > [n/a] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: > pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). > [n/a] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. > libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) > must go in a -devel package. > [n/a] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the > base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = > %{version}-%{release} > [n/a] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must > be removed in the spec if they are built. > [n/a] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a > %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with > desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your > packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put > a comment in the spec file with your explanation. > [n/a] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by > other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to > be installed should own the files or directories that other packages > may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora > should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories > owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a > good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, > then please present that at package review time. > [-] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf > %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). > * Seems straightforward This is in there now. > [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. > > A few questions and comments, see above. I've uploaded the new spec to http://people.redhat.com/clalance/python-cloudservers/python-cloudservers.spec, and the new SRPM to http://people.redhat.com/clalance/python-cloudservers/python-cloudservers-1.2-3.fc14.src.rpm. Can you take a look? Thanks, Chris Lalancette -- 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