[Bug 827722] Review Request: python-qrcode - Python QR Code image generator

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827722

Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> ---
Koji scratchbuild for F-18:

* http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4135361

REVIEW:

Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

+ rpmlint is almost silent

work ~: rpmlint Desktop/python-qrcode-2.4.1-2.fc18.*
python-qrcode.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qrcode
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
work ~: 

+ The package is named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (BSD as
stated in the PKG-INFO file).
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.

sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum qrcode-2.4.1.tar.gz*
3b7613c4bff6d4a381ab9641d384a9dd7dc48e133dc29b5f85c45e429f6713ef 
qrcode-2.4.1.tar.gz
3b7613c4bff6d4a381ab9641d384a9dd7dc48e133dc29b5f85c45e429f6713ef 
qrcode-2.4.1.tar.gz.1
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: 

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. See koji link above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
+ The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.

+/- The package should consistently use macros so please use %{buildroot}
instead of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT although I personally don't consider this as a
blocker.

+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1).
0 No devel sub-package.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

Please consider consistent macro usage within spec-file before importing. This
package is

APPROVED.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.