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=474430 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-12-10 16:11:21 EDT --- Basically, every package must have a devel branch; you should immediately dead.package it upon import to ensure that the package is never branched for any Fedora releases. I don't know of any EPEL-specific procedure other than that. I'll note for posterity that the code carries no license, but the README.txt file which comes from the same upstream site specifies one. rpmlint says: python-uuid.i386: E: no-binary python-uuid-debuginfo.i386: E: empty-debuginfo-package The debuginfo package is empty, and I see no calls to the compiler in the build log. Are you sure this package needs to be arch-specific? I'm not sure it would even build properly on x86_64; did you try? (On that platform, python_sitearch and python_sitelib aren't the same, while on i386 they are.) * source files match upstream. sha256sum: 1f87cc004ac5120466f36c5beae48b4c48cc411968eed0eaecd3da82aa96193f uuid-1.30.tar.gz 2b50f69a57f89054027ff1ab495aca9b65664edb6e76d1b6e4064584cfac948f uuid.README.txt * 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 not included upstream. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (EPEL5, i386). X debuginfo package is empty. X rpmlint has valid complaints. final provides and requires are sane: python-uuid = 1.30-1.el5 = python >= 2.3 python(abi) = 2.4 * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. -- 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