[Bug 545039] Review Request: xulrunner-python - Files needed to run Gecko applications written in python.

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Jan 12 22:33:36 UTC 2010

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


--- Comment #8 from Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com> 2010-01-12 17:33:05 EST ---
A few minor things that need to be addressed

+ rpmlint output

rpmlint xulrunner-python-*
xulrunner-python.src: E: percent-in-dependency nspr-devel >= %{nspr_version}
xulrunner-python.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot Python interface for mozilla
XPCOM library.
xulrunner-python.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 2, tab:
line 1)
xulrunner-python.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot Python interface for mozilla
XPCOM library.
xulrunner-python.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.9.2-1.20091125hg
['1.9.2-1.20100111hg.fc13', '1.9.2-1.20100111hg']
xulrunner-python.x86_64: W: no-documentation
xulrunner-python.x86_64: W: one-line-command-in-%post /sbin/ldconfig
xulrunner-python.x86_64: W: one-line-command-in-%postun /sbin/ldconfig
xulrunner-python-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources
xulrunner-python-devel.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot Development files for
python XPCOM interface.
xulrunner-python-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
xulrunner-python-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 10 warnings.

+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines
+ specfile name matches the package base name
+ package should satisfy packaging guidelines
+ license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
+ license matches the actual package license
+ latest version packaged
- %doc includes license file
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
+ upstream sources match sources in the srpm
  67eeb7bd7bc519a8adadc976e660791c  virt-mem-0.2.9.tar.gz
+ package successfully builds on at least one architecture
  tested using koji scratch build
- BuildRequires list all build dependencies
  issues with undefined %{nspr_version}
n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*
+ binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun+
does not use Prefix: /usr
+ package owns all directories it creates
+ no duplicate files in %files
+ Package perserves timestamps on install
+ %defattr line
+ %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+ consistent use of macros
+ package must contain code or permissible content
n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ files marked %doc should not affect package
+ header files should be in -devel
n/a static libraries should be in -static
n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel
+ devel must require the fully versioned base
+ packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
+ %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc.
+ filenames must be valid UTF-8


- if there is no license file, packager should query upstream
n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if
+ reviewer should build the package in mock/koji
+ the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
n/a review should test the package functions as described
+ scriptlets should be sane
n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel
+ shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or

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.

More information about the package-review mailing list