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: pcapy - A Python interface to libpcap https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=407031 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-12-04 00:53 EST ------- Not much here; just one non-documentation file. As far as I can tell, ASL 1.1 is compatible with the current Python license. As far as I know there is no reason to call ldconfig in this package; the .so file that's installed isn't in the search path, so the ldconfig call is simply pointless. Since that's the only issue I can fine, I'll go ahead and approve this and you can remove the %post and %postun scriptlets when you check in. * source files match upstream: 80a763d91814836e0cd1e57b63519dc60213b42ba3c486d4794cabae30fd7a57 pcapy-0.10.5.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: pcapy.so()(64bit) pcapy = 0.10.5-1.fc9 = /sbin/ldconfig libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libpcap.so.0.9()(64bit) libpython2.5.so.1.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) python(abi) = 2.5 * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directory it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. X ldconfig scriptlets are unneeded. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. APPROVED, just remove the unneeded scriptlets. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review