[Bug 754064] Review Request: python-mimeparse - Python module providing basic functions for parsing mime-type names

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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=754064

Jaroslav Škarvada <jskarvad@xxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |lmacken@xxxxxxxxxx,
                   |                            |metherid@xxxxxxxxx,
                   |                            |mrunge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
                   |                            |pj.pandit@xxxxxxxxxxx,
                   |                            |sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx

--- Comment #1 from Jaroslav Škarvada <jskarvad@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-11-20 15:55:46 EST ---
MUST items:
[YES] rpmplint is silent
[YES] Package meets naming guidelines.
[!] Package meets packaging guidelines.
  CFLAGS are set for the python3 build but not for the python2* build.
  Maybe it is not needed at all, but I am not sure about it.

[YES] Spec file matches base package name.
[YES] Licensing Guidelines are met.
[YES] Spec file is legible and in American English.
  I would prefer summary like: "Python module for parsing mime-type names" or
similar.

[YES] Sources match upstream.
[YES] Package builds OK.
[!] BuildRequires are correct.
I cannot find the python-setuptools-devel in rawhide.
Is the python-setuptools really needed? It seems to build OK without it.

[YES] Package doesn't bundle copies of system libraries.
[YES] Package owns all the directories it creates.
[YES] Package has no duplicity in %files.
[YES] Permission on files are set properly.
[NO] Spec file has consistant macro usage.
  Please use %{optflags} instead of $RPM_OPT_FLAGS or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT instead
of %{buildroot}.
[YES] Package is code or permissable content.
[YES] %doc files don't affect runtime.
[YES] Package doesn't own files/directories that other packages own.
[YES] All files are valid UTF-8.

Should items:
[YES] Package builds in mock.
[YES] Package uses sane scriptlets.
[NO] If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
  Please query the upstream about it.
[YES] Simple functionality test passed.

It seems there are several packages that bundle this lib:
django-authopenid
python-paste
python3-paste
django-authenticator
askbot

I am not sure if it is possible to unbundle the lib in all of them (maybe it is
forked), but I am CCing the maintainers to at least let them know.

Some more comments:
%{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print get_python_lib()")}
is probably not needed any more.

The defattr is also not needed.

AFAIK the above have only sense if it is planned to package for RHEL-5 EPEL. If
so there should be also more additions (e.g. %clean section, ...).

Please consider running the included test as part of the build process.

-- 
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



[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]