https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829126 --- Comment #4 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hello! Review: [+] OK [-] NA [?] Issue [+] Package meets naming and packaging guidelines [+] Spec file matches base package name. [+] Spec has consistant macro usage. [+] Meets Packaging Guidelines. [+] License [+] License field in spec matches [+] License file included in package [+] Spec in American English [+] Spec is legible. [-] Sources match upstream md5sum: >From an hg snapshot NA [+] BuildRequires correct [+] Package is code or permissible content. [+] Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. [+] Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. [+] Package has no duplicate files in %files. [+] Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. [+] Package owns all the directories it creates. [+] No rpmlint output. ^^ Nothing worrisome [ankur@ankur SRPMS]$ rpmlint ./python-rosinstall-0.6.19-1.fc17.src.rpm ../SPECS/python-rosinstall.spec /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/*.rpm python-rosinstall.src: W: invalid-url Source0: rosinstall-0.6.19.tar.bz2 ../SPECS/python-rosinstall.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: rosinstall-0.6.19.tar.bz2 python-rosinstall.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rosws python-rosinstall.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rosco python-rosinstall.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary roslocate python-rosinstall.src: W: invalid-url Source0: rosinstall-0.6.19.tar.bz2 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. [ankur@ankur SRPMS]$ [-] final provides and requires are sane: ankur result]$ review-req-check == python-rosinstall-0.6.19-1.fc19.noarch.rpm == Provides: python-rosinstall = 0.6.19-1.fc19 Requires: /usr/bin/python python(abi) = 2.7 python-vcstools == python-rosinstall-0.6.19-1.fc19.src.rpm == Provides: Requires: python-devel python-setuptools-devel python-sphinx SHOULD Items: [+] Should build in mock. [+] Should build on all supported archs [-] Should function as described. [-] Should have sane scriptlets. [-] Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. [+] Should have dist tag [+] Should package latest version [-] check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews) Issues: 1. Please make the same python related changes as the other two packages (correct build and install sections) 2. Please include the LICENSE and README files in the %doc line 3. Might be better to use py?.?.egg-info, will ensure the package doesn't break if python 2.7 is upgraded to 2.8 Again, only small issues. Please correct them and the package is good to go! Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur -- 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