[Bug 609193] Review Request: python-dirq - Directory based queue

[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=609193

Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert at fysast.uu.se> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #2 from Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert at fysast.uu.se> 2010-07-12 07:10:00 EDT ---
Fedora Review python-dirq 2010-07-12

rpmlint output:

$ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/python-dirq-0.0.5-2.fc12.noarch.rpm
~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-dirq-0.0.5-2.fc12.src.rpm 
python-dirq.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US perl -> Perl, peel,
perk
python-dirq.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US perl -> Perl, peel,
perk
python-dirq.src:15: W: macro-in-comment %if
python-dirq.src:17: W: macro-in-comment %{_bindir}
python-dirq.src:18: W: macro-in-comment %endif

Maybe write Perl with a capital P in the description?

The original spec file has two more warnings:

srpm/python-dirq.spec:16: W: macro-in-comment %global
srpm/python-dirq.spec:17: W: macro-in-comment %global

I had to change % to %% here in order for the package to build, making
the same change for the other macro-in-comment warnings will remove
them too.


+ Package named according to guidelines
+ Specfile named as the package
+ Package license (ASL 2.0) is a Fedora approved license
+ Package license matches the actual license of the package sources
+ Source does not contain a dedicated license file - however, the README file
  states the license and is included as %doc
+ Specfile is written in legible English
+ Source match upstream:

$ md5sum dirq-0.0.5.tar.gz srpm/dirq-0.0.5.tar.gz 
fdcf5c940d4c6c91c7b835194fae1f06  dirq-0.0.5.tar.gz
fdcf5c940d4c6c91c7b835194fae1f06  srpm/dirq-0.0.5.tar.gz

+ Package compiles (F12, F13, EL5)

? BuildRequires are sane - but some of them are hidden inside the
  %{altpython}-dirq package description, which is a bit confusing

+ no locales
+ no shared libraries
+ no bundled libraries

+ Package owns the directories it creates
+ No duplicate files
+ Permissions are sane and %files has %defattr(...)

? Specfile mostly uses macros consistently. It uses /usr/bin instead
  of %{_bindir} in the sed replacement that removes /usr/bin/env though.
  Why is this replacement done only for python3, and not for all?
  And you do pack the original examples and test files also for the
  %altpython package - intentional?

+ Package contains code
+ %doc is not runtime essential

+ ho headers
+ no static libraries

+ Package does not own others directories
+ installed files are UTF8

-- 
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.