[Bug 603518] Review Request: pyip - Python assembling/disassembling of raw ip packets

[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=603518

--- Comment #2 from Ian Weller <ian at ianweller.org> 2010-06-14 12:26:43 EDT ---
[  OK  ] specfiles match:
  8ec08f41fb86be9ee0e37b01fa069a22  pyip.spec
  8ec08f41fb86be9ee0e37b01fa069a22  pyip-0.7-1.fc13.src/pyip.spec
[FAILED] source files match upstream:
  b04e8b46c3868f1225c4cfa31f237bf4  pyip-0.7.tar.gz
  95221f62f66699dc97611e367a1b488b  pyip-0.7-1.fc13.src/pyip-0.7.tar.gz
  What happened here?
[  OK  ] package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
[FAILED] spec is properly named, cleanly written, and uses macros consistently.
  You should use a %{version} macro in the Source0 line.
[  OK  ] dist tag is present.
[  OK  ] build root is correct.
  It should be noted that for Fedora 10 and later don't require a BuildRoot
  tag. If you don't plan to build this for EPEL, you may remove it, although it
  is not required.
[  OK  ] license field matches the actual license.
[  OK  ] license is open source-compatible.
[  OK  ] license text included in package.
[  OK  ] latest version is being packaged.
[  OK  ] BuildRequires are proper.
[  N/A ] compiler flags are appropriate.
[  OK  ] %clean is present. 
[  OK  ] package builds in mock.
[  OK  ] package installs properly.
[  N/A ] debuginfo package looks complete.
[  OK  ] rpmlint is silent.
  (ignoring spelling warnings)
[  OK  ] final provides and requires are sane
[  N/A ] %check is present and all tests pass:
[  N/A ] no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
[  OK  ] owns the directories it creates. 
[  OK  ] doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
[  OK  ] no duplicates in %files.
[  OK  ] file permissions are appropriate.
[  N/A ] scriptlets match those on ScriptletSnippets page.
[  OK  ] code, not content.
[  OK  ] documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
[  OK  ] %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
[  OK  ] no headers.
[  OK  ] no pkgconfig files.
[  OK  ] no libtool .la droppings.
[  N/A ] desktop files valid and installed properly.

Solid package, just use a %{version} macro and let me know what's happening
with the different source .tar.gz.

----

I will sponsor you after this package is approved, libmodman (bug 603514) is
approved, pynetsnmp (bug 603521) is approved, and you do an unofficial review
of another package waiting on a review request. Link that bug to this report
when you're done with that. It can be any package, just go through and point
out things that would need to be changed based on the packaging guidelines.

If I were you, I would do an unofficial review outside the realm of Python
packages. :)

-- 
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.