Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457219 --- Comment #3 from Michal Schmidt <mschmidt@xxxxxxxxxx> 2008-08-19 08:18:58 EDT --- If there really are known bugs when used with old Twisted core, consider adding a versioned dependency on python-twisted-core in Requires and BuildRequires and make BZ450227 'Updated Twisted packages please' block this bug. You can use '--install-purelib %{python_sitearch}' like python-twisted-web does it instead of moving the files. Then you won't need to define python_sitelib. python-twisted-web calls %{_libexecdir}/twisted-dropin-cache in %post and %postun. Are they needed in this package too? Checking ReviewGuidelines MUST Items: - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. The package built successfully in mock. $ rpmlint -vi *.rpm python-twisted-web2.src: I: checking python-twisted-web2.x86_64: I: checking python-twisted-web2.x86_64: E: no-binary The package should be of the noarch architecture because it doesn't contain any binaries. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. There is a valid reason why the package is arch-specific. This rpmlint error should be ignored. OK. - MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . The name is consistent with the names of other Twisted components in Fedora. OK. - MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines . OK. - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . The Guidelines specify that any relevant documentation should be included in the package. The upstream tarball contains a doc/ directory which is not included in the package. PLEASE FIX. - MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . MIT license. OK. - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK. - MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. OK. - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. I see just one little error in Description: s/it's APIs/its APIs/ - MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. OK. - MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. sha1sum matches: 4a03e62453037b009ee5f0e1396be792249b9e2f OK. - MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. OK. - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. N/A - MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. OK. - MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A - MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. N/A - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. N/A - MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. OK. - MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. OK. - MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. OK. - MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). OK. - MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines . OK. - MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. OK. - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. N/A - MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. OK. - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). N/A - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. N/A - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A - MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. OK. - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file N/A - MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK - MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). OK. - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. OK. -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review