[Bug 710194] Review Request: tepache - Code sketcher for python

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Jun 2 19:27:42 UTC 2011


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=710194

--- Comment #2 from Jerry James <loganjerry at gmail.com> 2011-06-02 15:27:41 EDT ---
I like the "pygmy" suggestion. :-)  Unless you plan on using the same spec file
with EPEL, some elements of the spec file can be removed: the python_sitelib
definition at the top, BuildRoot, "rm -rf %{buildroot}" at the top of %install,
the %clean script, and %defattr in %files.

+: OK
-: must be fixed
=: should be fixed (at your discretion)
N: not applicable

MUST:
[+] rpmlint output: shown in comment 1 (slightly different spelling
suggestions, but otherwise identical on my machine)
[-] follows package naming guidelines: according to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28python_modules.29
this package should be named python-tepache.
[+] package meets the packaging guidelines
[+] package uses a Fedora approved license
[+] license field matches the actual license
[N] license file is included in %doc
[+] spec file is in American English
[+] spec file is legible
[+] sources match upstream: md5sum is b7a560d05a96f9cd7e374ef74a36c8cb for both
[+] package builds on at least one primary arch (tried x86_64)
[N] appropriate use of ExcludeArch
[+] all build requirements in BuildRequires
[N] spec file handles locales properly
[N] ldconfig in %post and %postun
[+] no bundled copies of system libraries
[N] no relocatable packages
[+] package owns all directories that it creates
[+] no files listed twice in %files
[+] proper permissions on files
[+] consistent use of macros
[+] code or permissible content
[N] large documentation in -doc
[+] no runtime dependencies in %doc
[N] header files in -devel
[N] static libraries in -static
[N] .so in -devel
[N] -devel requires main package
[+] package contains no libtool archives
[N] package contains a desktop file, uses desktop-file-install
[+] package does not own files/dirs owned by other packages
[+] all filenames in UTF-8

SHOULD:
[=] query upstream for license text
[N] description and summary contains available translations
[+] package builds in mock: tried fedora-rawhide-i386
[+] package builds on all supported arches: tried i386 and x86_64
[+] package functions as described: minimal testing only
[+] sane scriptlets
[N] subpackages require the main package
[N] placement of pkgconfig files
[N] file dependencies versus package dependencies
[=] package contains man pages for binaries/scripts

-- 
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.



More information about the package-review mailing list