[Bug 574506] Review Request: python26-distribute - the "Distribute" fork of setuptools for the python26 EPEL5 package

[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=574506

Steve Traylen <steve.traylen at cern.ch> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |steve.traylen at cern.ch
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |steve.traylen at cern.ch
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #7 from Steve Traylen <steve.traylen at cern.ch> 2010-04-23 16:20:21 EDT ---
Review: python26-distribute.
Date:   

* PASS: rpmlint output
$ rpmlint SPECS/python26-distribute.spec \
   SRPMS/python26-distribute-0.6.10-3.el5.src.rpm \
   RPMS/noarch/python26-distribute-0.6.10-3.el5.noarch.rpm  \
python26-distribute.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.6.10-3
0.6.10-3.el5
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

* PASS: Named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
python26-<tarballname>
* PASS: spec file name same as  base package %{name}.
* PASS: Packaging Guidelines.
* PASS: Approved license in .spec file.
Python or ZPLv2.0
* PASS: License on Source code.
zpl.txt and psfl.txt
* PASS: Include LICENSE file or similar if it exist.
zpl.txt and psfl.txt
* PASS: Written in American English.
* PASS: Spec file legible. 
* PASS: Included source must match upstream source.
$ md5sum distribute-0.6.10.tar.gz ../SOURCES/distribute-0.6.10.tar.gz 
99fb4b3e4ef0861bba11aa1905e89fed  distribute-0.6.10.tar.gz
99fb4b3e4ef0861bba11aa1905e89fed  ../SOURCES/distribute-0.6.10.tar.gz
* PASS: Build on one architecture.
* PASS: Not building on an architecture must highlighted.
* PASS: Build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
* PASS: Handle locales properly. 
no locales
* PASS: ldconfig must be called on shared libs.
no libs
* PASS: No bundled copies of system libraries.
none present
* PASS: Package must state why relocatable if relocatable.
not relocatalbe.
* PASS: A package must own all directories that it creates
* PASS:  No duplicate files in %files listings. 
None
* PASS:  Permissions on files must be set properly. %defattr
%defatt present,
* PASS:  %clean section contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
Present
* FAIL:  Each package must consistently use macros.
 See below
* PASS:  The package must contain code, or permissable content.
* PASS:  Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.  
No large docs
* PASS:  %doc  must not affect the runtime of the application. 
* PASS:  Header files must be in a -devel package.
No headers
* PASS:  Static libraries must be in a -static package.
No libs
* PASS:  Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
None
* PASS:  Then library files that end in .so 
None
* PASS:  devel packages must require the exact base package
None
* PASS:  No .la libtool archives
None
* PASS:  GUI apps should have %{name}.desktop file
No Gui
* PASS:  No files or directories already owned by other packages. 
None
* PASS:  %install must run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
It does
* PASS:  All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
They are.

Summary:
Just one things.

The .spec file uses both {buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT which it
should not. On a similar but less important you want to replace
$RPM_OPT_FLAGS with %{optflags}

-- 
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.