[Bug 525192] Review Request: python-mpmath - A pure Python library for multiprecision floating-point arithmetic

[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=525192


Thomas Spura <spurath at students.uni-mainz.de> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |spurath at students.uni-mainz.
                   |                            |de
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #16 from Thomas Spura <spurath at students.uni-mainz.de>  2009-10-20 17:56:48 EDT ---
Package Review
==============

Key:
 - = N/A
 x = Check
 ! = Problem
 ? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
 [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
 [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
 [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines
 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
     Tested on: 
       [] devel/i386 
       [] devel/x86_64
       [] F11/i386 
       [x] F11/x86_64
 [!] Rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint python-mpmath.spec python-mpmath-0.13-4.fc11.src.rpm
noarch/python-mpmath-*
python-mpmath.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.13-3 ['0.13-4.fc11',
'0.13-4']
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.


 [x] Buildroot is correct
     (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
 [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [?] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     License type: New BSD
     rpmlint accepts this one, too, I'd write this one into it...


 [x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
 [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
 [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
     Upstream source: ed7812cc7470c0b8fbbca76a2ff02075
     Build source:    ed7812cc7470c0b8fbbca76a2ff02075
 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
 [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [-] The spec file handles locales properly.
 [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
 [x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
 [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
 [x] Permissions on files are set properly.
 [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}.
 [x] Package consistently uses macros.
 [x] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
     -tests subpackage, see at the bottom


 [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
 [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
 [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [!] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
    missing in -doc subpackage



 [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
 [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
 [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
 [x] Latest version is packaged.
 [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
 [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
 [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1758202


 [x] Package functions as described (no hardware to test with).
 [x] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
 [x] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.



- It would be nice, if you would put the mpmath/tests subdir into a subpackage,
as they are mostly not needed. That would reduce the size of the package about
1/3 (unpacked).
- The two missing pictures mentioned above are accepable. When running the
examples by oneself, excatly that windows are opened, so no loss of
functionality or documentation.

-- 
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.