https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1072054 Kalev Lember <kalevlember@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |kalevlember@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #16 from Kalev Lember <kalevlember@xxxxxxxxx> --- And here's the review checklist: Fedora review gnome-code-assistance-0.3.1-4.fc21.src.rpm 2014-05-05 $ rpmlint gnome-code-assistance \ gnome-code-assistance-debuginfo \ gnome-code-assistance-0.3.1-4.fc21.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. + OK ! needs attention + rpmlint is quiet + The package is named according to Fedora packaging guidelines + The spec file name matches the base package name. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The license field in the spec file matches the actual license + The package contains the license file (COPYING) + Spec file is written in American English + Spec file is legible + Upstream sources match the sources in the srpm c0fddeea5dedab1d962883d7b7ed51b3 gnome-code-assistance-0.3.1.tar.xz c0fddeea5dedab1d962883d7b7ed51b3 Download/gnome-code-assistance-0.3.1.tar.xz + The package builds in koji n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires look sane n/a locale handling n/a ldconfig in %post and %postun + Package does not bundle copies of system libraries n/a Package isn't relocatable ! Package owns all the directories it creates /usr/libexec/gnome-code-assistance/ is unowned + No duplicate files in %files + Permissions are properly set + Consistent use of macros + The package must contain code or permissible content n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + Files marked %doc should not affect package n/a Header files should be in -devel n/a Static libraries should be in -static n/a Library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base + Packages should not contain libtool .la files n/a .desktop file handling + Doesn't own files or directories already owned by other packages + Filenames are valid UTF-8 I've found two more issues while going over the checklist: 1) Unowned /usr/libexec/gnome-code-assistance/ directory 2) Shipping both Python 2 and Python 3 bytecode Since this package uses Python 3, would be nice to remove the Python 2 bytecompiled files, or somehow prevent rpmbuild from creating them in the first place. e.g. for one of the files, types.py: $ rpm -ql gnome-code-assistance | grep types.*py # Those are Python 3 bytecompiled files /usr/libexec/gnome-code-assistance/backends/py/gnome/codeassistance/__pycache__/types.cpython-33.pyc /usr/libexec/gnome-code-assistance/backends/py/gnome/codeassistance/__pycache__/types.cpython-33.pyo # /usr/libexec/gnome-code-assistance/backends/py/gnome/codeassistance/types.py # ... and those are Python 2 bytecompiled files /usr/libexec/gnome-code-assistance/backends/py/gnome/codeassistance/types.pyc /usr/libexec/gnome-code-assistance/backends/py/gnome/codeassistance/types.pyo Anyway, looks fine to me to go in, especially if you fix the unowned directory before importing the package. APPROVED -- 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