Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-xattr - Extended attributes library wrapper for Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235526 kevin@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |kevin@xxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxx 2007-04-17 23:14 EST ------- See below - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPL) OK - License field in spec matches See below - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: c2c28332bbeefc2cf0627ecb4c10c9b0 pyxattr-0.2.1.tar.gz c2c28332bbeefc2cf0627ecb4c10c9b0 pyxattr-0.2.1.tar.gz.1 OK - BuildRequires correct See below - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version Issues: 1. Is the name right here? According to the guidelines if the upstream has 'py' in it you can just use that name: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-8756a3bce652c376d7ba3908461b638784b6952d so perhaps pyxattr would be acceptable instead of python-xattr? 2. Upstream doesn't seem to active, but you might ask if they can include a copy of the GPL with the package. Not a blocker. 3. The Source URL should probibly be: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/pyxattr/pyxattr-%{version}.tar.gz 4. Do you need the %defattr(0644,root,root,0755) or does a normal %defattr(-,root,root,-) Install files with the correct permissions? 5. What is the #Packager removed due to FE requirements comment about? (This also applies to the pylibacl too) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review