[Bug 510038] Review Request: python-icalendar - Parser and generator library for iCalendar files

[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=510038





--- Comment #4 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola at iki.fi>  2009-07-08 05:09:36 EDT ---
- Python packages need BR: python-devel, this one has BR:
python-setuptools-devel
 which pulls in python-devel, so that's ok. NB. python-setuptools-devel isn't
available on EPEL, for that you need BR: python-devel, python-setuptools.

- I suggest using "python" instead of "%{__python}".

- Instead of
 %{python_sitelib}/*
you should list
 %{python_sitelib}/icalendar/
 %{python_sitelib}/icalendar-*.egg-info/
since the first version won't notice if the egg-info is missing.

- Drop the python spec template comment
 # For noarch packages: sitelib

**

rpmlint output in comment #3.

- Add doc as mentioned in #1, except version.txt which isn't really necessary
(the version info is already in the RPM itself).


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
- Python module with name that doesn't contain py or Py => prefix python-.

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.
NEEDSWORK
- License mentioned in src/icalendar/parser.py is GPL => license is GPL+.
- Other files do not mention any license headers, readme states license is LGPL
=> LGPLv2+
* Resulting license tag is GPL+ and LGPLv2+ (which probably can be combined to
GPLv2+).
- Suggest contacting upstream about this. License headers should be present in
every source code file.

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. N/A
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK
MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A
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: Debuginfo package is complete. 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. N/A

MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect
runtime of application. NEEDSWORK
- Add missing %doc.

MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files
ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A
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
- Included LGPLv2 license but no GPL...

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.