https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819134 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #10 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- OK, I'll do a full review and assign it back to jortel when I'm done so he gets the credit. Given that I know you're only packaging this for f16 and up, I'll review based on that. Unfortunately the previous review missed several things, so I have some more comments. The python_sitelib macro definition is unnecessary in Fedora (only EL5 needs it) BuildRoot is unnecessary in Fedora, as is the first line of %install, the entire %clean section and the %defattr line in %files. (Only EL5 needs the first three; the latter is completely unnecessary.) The Requires: python >= 2.4 line is unnecessary and somewhat misleading to boot. RPM will add a proper python(abi) dependency, and a package built for f17 or rawhide won't install on something with only python 2.4 anyway. Is your personal fedoraprople.org site the proper source for the tarball? It appears that you are the upstream but it seems odd. There's some kind of test available. Is it possible to run it in a %check section? * source files match upstream. sha256sum: bfba715817a7806b1f3ad62e0df0321de72aa07777e549853d039eda951bfc2b python-okaara-1.0.19.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint is silent. X final provides and requires are sane: python-okaara = 1.0.19-1.fc18 = X python >= 2.4 python(abi) = 2.7 ? %check is not present but there appears to be some sort of test suite. * no bundled libraries. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. -- 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