[Bug 526126] Review Request: python3 - Python 3.x (backwards incompatible version)

[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=526126

--- Comment #64 from Tim Lauridsen <tim.lauridsen at googlemail.com> 2010-01-10 08:48:25 EST ---
MUST:
* package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
* spec file name match base package
* package meet Packaging Guidelines .
* package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing
Guidelines .
* License field match the actual license.
* available license(s) file(s) is included in %doc.
* spec file is written in American English. 
* spec file is legible. 
* sources match upstream (md5sum)
    d1ddd9f16e3c6a51c7208f33518cd674  Python-3.1.1.tar.bz2 (upstream)
    d1ddd9f16e3c6a51c7208f33518cd674  Python-3.1.1.tar.bz2 (srpm)
* package compile on x86
* build dependencies is listed in BuildRequires
* no locales
* available shared library files calls ldconfig in %post and %postun. 
* package not relocatable
* package own all directories that it creates.
* no duplicate files in the %files listing. 
* Permissions on files must be set properly. (%defattr(...) line)
* %clean section present and contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
* package is consistently using macros
* package contain code, or permissable content
* no large doc
* %doc does not affect runtime
? available Header files go into -devel package. 
    What about this one ?
        python3.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/include/python3.1/pyconfig-32.h
* no static libs
X available pkgconfig(.pc) files 'Requires: pkgconfig' 
    There is a buildrequire on pkgconfig, but no Requires:
    https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PkgconfigFiles
* no unversioned *.so.* libs
* available devel packages uses fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release} 
* package dont contain .la libtool archives.
* not a GUI app.
* no files or directories already owned by other packages.
* %install begins with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
* filenames is valid UTF-8

SHOULD:
* source package include license text(s) in separate file from upstream
* builds in mock. 
    Not tried, but koji build has been done so it should be ok
* compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. 
* package functions as described.
* scriptlets is sane.
* subpackages require the base package using a fully versioned dependency.

-- 
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.