[Bug 494517] Review Request: x-kit - A simple, transparent and easy to extend xorg parser

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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=494517





--- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola at iki.fi>  2009-04-08 18:06:48 EDT ---
- Why do you remove the egg? It should be included:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python/Eggs

- Drop explicit Requires: python, it is automatically picked up.

- For clearness, remove "--record=INSTALLED_FILES" from install phase, since
the record isn't used for anything.

- Add "-O1 --skip-build" to install phase.

- Extend description. Maybe use that from upstream:
A kit to manipulate xorg.conf which is aimed at both developers and users. It
is a distribution and desktop agnostic project.

X-kit is composed of the following programs:

* XorgParser: a simple, transparent and easy to extend xorg parser.
* XorgValidator: a program which uses X-parser, tries to make sense of
xorg.conf and operates accordingly.
* XorgConfig-gtk: a simple GUI to xorg.conf
* XorgConfig-kde: a simple GUI to xorg.conf

-------

Review:

rpmlint output:
x-kit.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/x-kit-0.4.2/examples/0-example.py
x-kit.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/x-kit-0.4.2/examples/1-example.py
x-kit.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/x-kit-0.4.2/tests/run
x-kit.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/x-kit-0.4.2/tests/run
/usr/bin/python
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

- Remove executable perms in setup phase, after that rpmlint output becomes
clean.

MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a
duplicate. OK
MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used
consistently. OK
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the 
Licensing Guidelines. OK
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. OK
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. OK
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK
MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. OK
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package
that owns the directory. OK
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK
MUST: Clean section exists. OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. OK
MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect
runtime of application. OK
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. OK
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. OK
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files
ending in .so must go in a -devel package. OK
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency. OK
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. OK
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. OK
MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK
MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK
SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK
SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from
upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK
SHOULD: The package builds in mock. 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.