[Bug 654544] Review Request: python-asyncmongo - An asynchronous Python MongoDB library

[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=654544

Haïkel Guémar <karlthered at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |karlthered at gmail.com
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |karlthered at gmail.com
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #1 from Haïkel Guémar <karlthered at gmail.com> 2010-11-18 12:25:14 EST ---
Review (first pass)

Mandatory items:
* rpmlint output: OK (rpmlint doesn't like github https connection but the
provided link works fine)
* respect package naming guidelines: OK (python package)
* respect packaging guidelines: OK (including python specific guidelines)
* licensed according an approved license: OK (Apache License 2.0)
* license field in spec matches actual license: OK (the same as stated in
sources and upstream site)
* ship license file if provided by sources: irrelevant
* spec written in legible american english: OK
* provided sources checksum matches upstream: OK
bf20a01d657dbfff82131dc4eec76292320b10fe  asyncmongo-0.1.tar.gz (original from
github)
bf20a01d657dbfff82131dc4eec76292320b10fe  asyncmongo-0.1.tar.gz (from src.rpm)
* compile on at least one primary architecture: OK (i386 and x86_64)
* build in mock: OK (no missing BR)
* handle properly locales: irrelevant
* noarch package: OK
* owns all directories it creates: OK
* all files listed only once in %files: OK
* files permissions correctly set: OK
* consistent use of macros: OK
* pure python module, no documentation shipped in tarball, no GUI application
* filename encoding: OK (valid UTF-8)

Non-mandatory items:
* builds in mock and is functional
* no license file shipped in source but since all source files header mention
the actual license (vanilla ASL 2.0) it should not block the acceptation of the
package. Anyway, i recommend packager asking upstream to add one and fix the
distutils PKG-INFO file (the license field says UNKNOWN).

Looks fine, i'll leave some time for our fellow packagers comment this review
and a second pass review.

-- 
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.