Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: python-virtinst https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226348 dlutter@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |berrange@xxxxxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From dlutter@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-05-03 18:25 EST ------- Review based on http://koji.fedoraproject.org/packages/python-virtinst/0.103.0/3.fc7/src/python-virtinst-0.103.0-3.fc7.src.rpm Specfile looks ok overall. Small comments - Not strictly necessary here, but we encourage people to use %global instead of %define in spec files (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/global_preferred_over_define) - Source0 needs to be a complete URL to the released source tarball - Should the provide of virtinst be versioned ? rpmlint says: E: python-virtinst non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/virtinst/ParaVirtGuest.py 0644 E: python-virtinst non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/virtinst/DistroManager.py 0644 E: python-virtinst non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/virtinst/Guest.py 0644 E: python-virtinst non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/virtinst/FullVirtGuest.py 0644 E: python-virtinst non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/virtinst/util.py 0644 Strip the #!/usr/bin/python from those files; seems unnecessary, anyway W: python-virtinst obsolete-not-provided python-xeninst Should be fixed -- 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