[Bug 492924] Review Request: python-unipath - Alternative to Python modules os, os.path and shutil

[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=492924


Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola at iki.fi> changed:

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




--- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola at iki.fi>  2009-04-09 18:56:50 EDT ---
A few stylistic notes:

- Do the file conversion more safely and shortly with this:

for f in README.txt doc/reference/path_355.py ; do
    iconv -f ISO-8859-1 -t UTF-8 -o $f.utf8 $f && \
    touch -r $f $f.utf8 && \
    mv $f.utf8 $f
done

- Why do you remove the first line of unipath/test.py? Add a comment about
this, and maybe a few empty lines to clear up the setup phase.

- Don't use macros for sed, cp, rm.

- Defining pyver just to get the complete egg file name seems a bit overkill.
I'd remove pyver and replace it with a * in the files section.

- Change "%define oname" to "%global oname"

***

Review:

rpmlint output is 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
- Please, go through the suggestions above.

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.

MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect
runtime of application. ~OK
- Add PKG-INFO to %doc.

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: The package builds in mock. OK

SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from
upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. NEEDSFIX
- No license file included.

***


The problems are minor, you can do the fixes upon import to CVS. The package is

APPROVED

-- 
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.