[Bug 521707] Review Request: python-zc.buildout - System for managing Python development buildouts

[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=521707

Kalev Lember <kalev at smartlink.ee> changed:

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

--- Comment #8 from Kalev Lember <kalev at smartlink.ee> 2010-06-19 20:37:35 EDT ---
Fedora review python-zc.buildout-1.4.3-2.fc13.src.rpm 2010-06-20

+ OK
! needs attention

(In reply to comment #7)
> python-zc.buildout.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary buildout
> 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
> There is no upstream manpage and I'm not sure there should really be one.    

Yes, I also think there's no real need for a man page. Even Debian (usually
very strict about man pages) doesn't have one for this package.

+ rpmlint warning can be ignored
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
  Naming Guildelines [1] say that a package must not use . as a separator,
  but I think it's OK in this case:
  - rpm / yum seems to handle it just fine
  - there are already a few packages which have . in their names
    (openoffice.org and java-1.6.0-openjdk for example)
  - upstream uses . in package name
  - debian also calls it python-zc.buildout

[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageNamingGuidelines#Separators

+ Spec file name matches the base package name
+ The package follows the Packaging Guidelines
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The license field in the spec file matches the actual license
n/a The package doesn't contain a separate license file and thus it's also not
in %doc
+ Spec file is written in American English
+ Spec file is legible
+ Upstream sources match sources in the srpm. md5sum:
  527cece8ca7ee087dc4e23360bbd9bcb  zc.buildout-1.4.3.tar.gz
  527cece8ca7ee087dc4e23360bbd9bcb  Download/zc.buildout-1.4.3.tar.gz
+ The package builds in koji
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+ BuildRequires look sane
n/a The spec file handles locales properly
+ Package does not bundle copies of system libraries
n/a Does not use Prefix: /usr
+ Package owns all directories it creates
+ No duplicate files in %files
+ Permissions are properly set and %files has %defattr
+ %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+ Consistent use of macros
+ Package contains code or permissible content
n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ Files marked %doc should not affect package
n/a Header files should be in -devel
n/a Static libraries should be in -static
n/a Library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package
n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base
n/a 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

APPROVED

-- 
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.