[Bug 648898] Review Request: python-dslib - A free Python library for accessing Czech Data Boxes (ISDS)

[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=648898

--- Comment #2 from Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotni at redhat.com> 2010-11-05 08:52:34 EDT ---
OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.
python-dslib.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
python-dslib.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
python-dslib.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
python-dslib.src: W: no-%clean-section
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

Why things were omitted from spec file was explained (no plan for EPEL
packaging)

OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
NEEDSWORK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .

 * sql sub-package should Require exact version (including release) of main
package
 * Group tags for main package and sql package are also incorrect I
   believe (Development/Libraries is probably more suitable)


OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
OK: All independent sub-packages have License of their own (if it exists)
OK: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
oK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
NA: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files
(not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
NEEDSWORK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.

As you yourself have noted in the spec file: this package bundles 2
other libraries, both somewhat modified. You will need FESCO exception
for bundling these inside dslib. Until then, I won't be able to
approve this package.

OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a
directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
directory.
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
NA: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of
large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to
size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly
if it is not present.
OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

All in all just minor things + that bundled libraries that need FESCO
exception (or some way of patching them :-) )

-- 
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.