[Bug 985967] Review Request: python-arc - Autotest RPC Client libraries and tools

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985967

Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx
           Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    |tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx
              Flags|                            |fedora-review?



--- Comment #19 from Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> ---
== Review ==

- rpmlint checks return:

python-arc.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Autotest -> Auto test,
Auto-test, Astutest
python-arc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Autotest -> Auto test,
Auto-test, Astutest
python-arc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/doc/python-arc/api/.buildinfo
python-arc.noarch: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/arcli.1.gz 39:
warning: macro `..' not defined
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

All safe to ignore, although, you might want to look at fixing those latter two
items at some point. (the .buildinfo file is probably extraneous and the man
page probably needs a minor cleanup)

- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license (GPLv2) OK, text in %doc
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream
(9907afa0e840b292a20d8bd4c07345cbfef6aa7ea91ec3ee6a2e8fb77fc2ce19)
- package compiles on f20 (noarch)
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all directories that it creates
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no need for .desktop file 

== Non-Blocker Items ==
* There is a lack of proper license attribution in the source. Please include
some sort of per-file license attribution in the source files, like this:

"""
Copyright (C) 2014 John Doe <jdoe@xxxxxxxxxx>
License: GPLv2 (see LICENSE for details)
"""

At the very least, please include some text which indicates the license (and
version of the license) in README.md. 

This is not technically a review blocker, but since you're also the upstream
here, I'm pointing this out as something you should do.

== Blocker Items ==
* Please use %{__python2} instead of %{__python} (see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros)


Fix that blocker (and the non-blocker item, please) and I will approve this
package and sponsor you.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
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]