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: pyexiv2 - Python binding to exiv2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455757 ------- Additional Comments From dan@xxxxxxxx 2008-07-17 12:56 EST ------- OK* source files match upstream: 6ae7aa7e155117ea2356e78112ede2031fc06c8e pyexiv2-0.1.2.tar.bz2 OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. OK build root is correct. BAD license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible (GPLv2+). License text included in package. OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. BAD compiler flags are appropriate. OK %clean is present. OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64). BAD debuginfo package looks complete. OK rpmlint is silent. OK final provides and requires look sane. N/A %check is present and all tests pass. OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK no scriptlets present. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK no headers. OK no pkgconfig files. OK no libtool .la droppings. OK not a GUI app. - use full URL to the source archive - license tag should be GPLv2+ - package's own compile flags are used (see http://dev.gentoo.org/~vapier/scons-blows.txt) - debuginfo doesn't contain source files - depends on the right flags -- 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