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: cwiid - Library and tools for comunicating with a wiimote https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=441072 ------- Additional Comments From josh.kayse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2008-04-08 19:40 EST ------- Ok, I built the packages by adding %{python_sitelib}/%{name}-%{version}-py2.5.egg-info to the python2 %files section (I do not know if this is the correct thing to do or not, I don't know what that file is used for) For testing purposes I took care of the easy things for rpmlint (description too long and summary ending in . and no changelog) which produced the following output on the built packages: cwiid.x86_64: W: no-documentation cwiid-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation cwiid-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/lib64/libcwiid.a cwiid-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/include/cwiid.h cwiid-python2.x86_64: W: no-documentation cwiid-python2.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages/cwiid.so 0775 cwiid-wmgui.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized wiimote connectio test application cwiid-wminput.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /etc/cwiid/wminput/buttons cwiid-wminput.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /etc/cwiid/wminput/gamepad cwiid-wminput.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /etc/cwiid/wminput/neverball cwiid-wminput.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /etc/cwiid/wminput/nunchuk_acc_ptr cwiid-wminput.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /etc/cwiid/wminput/ir_ptr cwiid-wminput.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /etc/cwiid/wminput/acc_ptr Remaining packaging guidelines: MUST: + rpmlint output see above + package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines + specfile name matches the package base name - package should satisfy packaging guidelines not rpmlint clean + license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora + license matches actual package license - includes LICENSE file in %doc does not include LICENSE file + spec file written in American English + spec file is legible + upstream sources match sources in the srpm - package successfully builds on at least one architecture Does not build with sources provided. Builds on x86_64 once initial recommendations are met + ExcludeArch bugs filed - BuildRequires list all build dependencies needs python-devel >= 2.4 ? %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/* + binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun + does not use Prefix: /usr + package owns all directories it creates + no duplicate files in %files + %defattr line + %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT + consistent use of macros + package must contain code or permissible content + large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + files marked %doc should not affect package + header files should be in -devel + static libraries should be in -static + packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig' + libfoo.so must go in -devel + -devel must require the fully versioned base + packages should not contain libtool .la files + packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file + packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages Optional: + if there is no license file, packager should query upstream + translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if available + builds in mock + builds on i386 and x86_64 ? review should test the package functions as described + scriptlets should be sane + pkgconfig files should go in -devel + shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or /usr/sbin Take care of those things and I'll do another pre-review. -- 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