https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829301 --- Comment #3 from Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart@xxxxxxxxxx> --- #-------------------------------------------------------------------------# rpmlint output. I think the below Error can be safely ignored (as you're importing httplib at runtime) --------------------- kashyap@SPECS$ rpmlint python-glanceclient.spec ../RPMS/noarch/python-glanceclient-2012.2-0.1.f1.fc16.noarch.rpm ../SRPMS/python-glanceclient-2012.2-0.1.f1.fc16.src.rpm python-glanceclient.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python-httplib2 python-glanceclient.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary glance 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. kashyap@SPECS$ ls --------------------- OK - %{?dist} tag is used in release OK - The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK - The spec file name must match the base package %{name} OK - The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines OK - The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines (license is ASL 2.0) NA - Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun OK - The package MUST successfully compile and build. (It does build) --- Successful koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4140534 --- OK - The spec file must be written in American English. OK - The spec file for the package MUST be legible OK - The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. #---------------------------# kashyap@foo2$ sha256sum python-glanceclient-2012.2~f1.tar.gz a591f49125bc019b977e478784c5ce67d408aed2fe499f4cbf418d01a738914a python-glanceclient-2012.2~f1.tar.gz kashyap@foo2$ sha256sum python-glanceclient-2012.2~f1.tar.gz-upstream a591f49125bc019b977e478784c5ce67d408aed2fe499f4cbf418d01a738914a python-glanceclient-2012.2~f1.tar.gz-upstream kashyap@foo2$ #---------------------------# NA - The spec file MUST handle locales properly (no translations) NA - The package is not relocatable OK - A package must own all directories that it creates OK - A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings OK - Permissions on files must be set properly OK - Each package must have a %clean section (This is taken care of from F13+ automatically) OK - Each package must consistently use macros OK - The package must contain code, or permissible content NA - Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage OK - If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application NA - Header files must be in a -devel package -- no devel package NA - Static libraries must be in a -static package -- no static package NA - Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' OK - Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives NA - Packages containing GUI applications MUST include a .desktop file OK - No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK - All file names in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8 OK - The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. #-------------------------------------------------------------------------# Looks good to me. Scratch build successful per earlier comment. Review approved. -- 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