[Bug 664154] Review Request: python-babel-glade - This is a Babel extractor plug-in which extracts translatable messages.

[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=664154

--- Comment #2 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin at tummy.com> 2010-12-18 16:15:29 EST ---
Package Review
==============

Key:
OK = Check
ISSUE = Problem, see issues at the bottom. 

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===

ISSUE  Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. 
ISSUE  Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
ok  Spec file is legible and written in American English.
ok  Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
ok  Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded directory names.
ok  Package consistently uses macros.
ok  Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
ok  PreReq is not used.
ok  All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are
listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
ok  Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)) or not present
ok  Package run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) and the beginning of
%install.
ok  Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
ok  Changelog in prescribed format.
ok  Rpmlint output
ok  License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
ok  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.
ok  License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
ok  Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
ok  Sources contain only permissible code or content.
ok  Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
178ec040db6bd8126eb80e1adb892c9c  BabelGladeExtractor-0.2dev-r288.tar.bz2
178ec040db6bd8126eb80e1adb892c9c  BabelGladeExtractor-0.2dev-r288.tar.bz2.pkg
ok  Requires correct, justified where necessary.
ok  Package must own all directories that it creates.
ok  Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
ok  Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
ok  Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
ok  Permissions on files are set properly.
ok  Each %files section contains %defattr.
ok  No %config files under /usr.
ok  %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
ok  Package contains code, or permissable content.
ok  File names are valid UTF-8.
ok  Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
ok  Package contains no bundled libraries.
ok  Package does not generate any conflict.
ok  Package does not contains kernel modules.
ok  Package is not relocatable.
ok  Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
ok  Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
ok  Package installs properly.
ok  Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
ok  Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [6]

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
ok  Latest version is packaged.
ok  Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
ok  If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
ok  Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
ok  SourceX is a working URL.
ISSUE  Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
ok  Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
ok  Dist tag is present.
ok  Spec use %global instead of %define.
ok  No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
ok  Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
ok  File based requires are sane.

=== Issues ===

1. (blocker) are you sure the name is right here? It's a bit of a weird fuzzy
area
I guess. It is python, and it is a babel plugin, but the upstream is
BabelGladeExtractor
or in some places 'babelglade'. Would python-babel-BabelGladeExtractor make
more sense?

2. (blocker) not sure the version is right here either. Is this a pre-release ?
Then I would suggest: 0.2-0.0.dev.r288 ? Then, when final 0.2 is released you
can go to 
0.2-1 safely.

3. (blocker) Should this package require python-babel? It's not much good
without it 
is it?

-- 
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.