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=708826 Garrett Holmstrom <gho...@fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Garrett Holmstrom <gho...@fedoraproject.org> 2011-06-14 13:49:20 EDT --- Review of python-gitdb-0.5.2-3.20110613git17d9d13.fc16.src.rpm Everything looks good packaging-wise. Please wait to hear back from upstream about the content licensing bit before you upload sources. Mandatory review guidelines: ok - rpmlint output python-gitdb.src: W: invalid-url Source0: gitdb-0.5.2-17d9d13.tar.gz ok - Package meets naming guidelines ok - Spec file name matches base package name ok - License is acceptable (BSD) ok - License field in spec is correct ok - License files included in package %docs or not included in upstream source ok - License files installed when any subpackage combination is installed ok - Spec written in American English ok - Spec is legible ok - Sources match upstream unless altered to fix permissibility issues Github does not supply tarballs with consistent checksums ok - Build succeeds on at least one supported platform ok - Build succeeds on all supported platforms or has ExcludeArch + bugs filed ok - BuildRequires correct -- - Package handles locales with %find_lang -- - %post, %postun call ldconfig if package contains shared .so files ok - No bundled system libs -- - Relocatability is justified ok - Package owns all directories it creates ok - Package requires other packages for directories it uses but does not own ok - No duplicate files in %files unless necessary for license files ok - File permissions are sane ok - Each %files section contains %defattr ok - Consistent use of macros no - Sources contain only permissible code or content Upstream contacted about gitdb/test/fixtures/* -- - Large documentation files go in -doc package ok - Missing %doc files do not affect runtime -- - Headers go in -devel package -- - Static libs go in -static package -- - Unversioned .so files go in -devel package -- - Devel packages require base with fully-versioned dependency ok - Package contains no .la files -- - GUI app installs .desktop file w/desktop-file-install or has justification -- - Package's files and directories don't conflict with others' or justified ok - File names are valid UTF-8 Optional review guidelines: ok - Query upstream about including license files no - Translations of description, Summary no - Builds in mock python-async has not yet made it to mirrors ok - Builds on all supported platforms -- - Scriptlets are sane -- - Non-devel subpackage Requires are sane -- - .pc files go in -devel unless main package is a development tool ok - No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin -- - Man pages included for all executables ok - Package with test-suite executes it in %check section Packaging guidelines: ok - Has dist tag ok - Useful without external bits ok - Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir, /usr/target, /run -- - Programs launched before FS mounting use /run instead of /var/run -- - Binaries in /bin, /sbin do not depend on files in /usr ok - Changelog in prescribed format ok - Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags ok - Correct BuildRoot tag on < F10/EL6 ok - Correct %clean section on < F13/EL6 ok - Requires correct, justified where necessary ok - Summary, description do not use trademarks incorrectly ok - All relevant documentation is packaged, tagged appropriately ok - Documentation files do not have executable permissions ok - %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise -- - Package with .pc files Requires pkgconfig on < EL6 ok - Useful -debuginfo package or disabled and justified ok - No static executables ok - Rpath absent or only used for internal libs -- - Config files marked with %config -- - %config files marked noreplace or justified ok - No %config files under /usr -- - SysV-style init script ok - Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded directory names where appropriate ok - Spec uses macros for executables only when configurability is needed ok - %makeinstall used only when ``make install DESTDIR=...'' doesn't work ok - Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time -- - Spec uses %{SOURCE#} instead of $RPM_SOURCE_DIR or %{sourcedir} ok - %global instead of %define where appropriate -- - Package containing translations BuildRequires gettext ok - File timestamps preserved by file ops -- - Parallel make ok - Spec does not use Requires(pre,post) notation -- - User, group creation handled correctly (See Packaging:UsersAndGroups) -- - Web app files go in /usr/share/%{name}, not /var/www -- - Conflicts are justified ok - No external kernel modules ok - No files in /srv ok - One project per package -- - Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified -- - Packages needing dirs in /var/run or /var/lock use tmpfiles.d on >= F15 Python guidelines: ok - Runtime Requires correct ok - Python macros declared on < F13/EL6 ok - All .py files packaged with .pyc, .pyo counterparts ok - Includes .egg-info files/directories when generated ok - Provides/Requires properly filtered -- - Code that invokes gtk.gdk.get_pixels_array() Requires numpy -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
