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=751925 --- Comment #3 from Brendan Jones <brendan.jones.it@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-11-10 17:21:58 EST --- Hi Thibault, pretty much there, I've just got a couple of questions. The %check seems to take an awfully long time, and there are a number of test directories installed. I'm just wondering if they're really necessary. You could consider a separate doc package also for the examples and documentation, but that's just a suggestion. Full review below, I'll wait for your reply before passing. [-] N/A [+] Good [!] Attention [?] Clarification Required ======== [+] named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [+] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec [+] Meet the Packaging Guidelines unless building for F12 and below or EPEL [!] Be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines *** You just need to specify the lrucache.py is licensed under AFL [+] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license [+] License file must be included in %doc [+] The spec file must be written in American English [+] The spec file for the package MUST be legible *** I would split the Requires on separate lines for legibility but thats just personal preference [+] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source shasum c8592ce71809120cf3e8ee8e7befcfaa54085b3c OK [+] Successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture [+] Proper use of ExcludeArch [!] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires *** perhaps python2-devel rather than python-devel, although this is rather cosmetic [+] The spec file MUST handle locales properly [-] Shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun [+] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries [+] 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 [+] A package must own all directories that it creates directories under this [+] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings [ ] Permissions on files must be set properly. %defattr(...) no longer required [+] Each package must consistently use macros [+] The package must contain code, or permissable content [+] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage [-] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application [-] Header files must be in a -devel package [-] Static libraries must be in a -static package [-] library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package [-] devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency [-] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives [-] GUI apps must include a %{name}.desktop file, properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section [+] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages [+] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8 [!] Has BuildRequires: python2-devel and/or python3-devel https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires (As mentioned above) [-] Defines and uses %{python_sitelib} or %{python_sitearch}: %if ! (0%{?fedora} > 12 || 0%{?rhel} > 5) %{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib())")} %{!?python_sitearch: %global python_sitearch %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib(1))")} %endif https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros [?] Has BuildRequires: python-setuptools-devel I'm really not sure if this is still required? [+] Python eggs must be built from source. They cannot simply drop an egg from upstream into the proper directory. [+] Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [+] If egg-info files are generated by the modules build scripts they must be included in the package. [-] When building a compat package, it must install using easy_install -m so it won't conflict with the main package. [-] When building multiple versions (for a compat package) one of the packages must contain a default version that is usable via "import MODULE" with no prior setup. [+] A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [+] Requires OK [+] Egg install: %install %{__python} setup.py install --skip-build --root $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Should Items ============ [-] the packager SHOULD query upstream for any missing license text files to include it [-] Non-English language support for description and summary sections in the package spec if available [+] The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock [+] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures [+] The reviewer should test that the package functions as described tests OK [+] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane [-] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) should usually be placed in a -devel pkg [-] If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself [+] Should contain man pages for binaries/scripts None in source although adequate documentation -- 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