[Bug 665853] Review Request: h5py - A Python interface to the HDF5 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=665853

Steve Traylen <steve.traylen at cern.ch> changed:

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

--- Comment #11 from Steve Traylen <steve.traylen at cern.ch> 2011-06-17 15:16:31 EDT ---

Builds in mock f15 x86_64.

rpmlint results:
$ rpmlint ./h5py.spec /var/lib/mock/fedora-15-x86_64/result/*.rpm
./h5py.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://h5py.googlecode.com/files/h5py-1.3.1.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found
h5py.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://h5py.googlecode.com/files/h5py-1.3.1.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found

this is clean, known problem with googlecode.


- Package meets naming and packaging guidelines

- Spec file matches base package name.
Yes named after tar ball.
- Spec has consistant macro usage.
They are.
- Meets Packaging Guidelines.
Yes.
- License
BSD
- License field in spec matches
License looks to be consistantly BSD
- License file included in package
Yes license directory included.
- Spec in American English
yes
- Spec is legible.
yes
- Sources match upstream md5sum:
$ md5sum h5py-1.3.1.tar.gz ../SOURCES/h5py-1.3.1.tar.gz 
cfef84992d33910a06371dc35becb71b  h5py-1.3.1.tar.gz
cfef84992d33910a06371dc35becb71b  ../SOURCES/h5py-1.3.1.tar.gz

- Package needs ExcludeArch
It  odes not
- BuildRequires correct
Look good and passes mock
- Spec handles locales/find_lang
Not important.
- Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
Not relocatable.
- Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
Fine
- Package has a correct %clean section.
Fine
- Package has correct buildroot
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
- Package is code or permissible content.
Yes
- Doc subpackage needed/used.
Not needed
- Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
Thet don't

- Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
Not needed.
- Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
Not Needed.
- .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig
Not Needed.
- .so files in -devel subpackage.
Not Needed.
- -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
Not Needed.
- .la files are removed.
Not Needed.

- Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
Not Needed.
- Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
Mock
- Package has no duplicate files in %files.
No
- Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
It does not
- Package owns all the directories it creates.
It does.
- No rpmlint output.
See above.

- final provides and requires are sane:
They are indeed.

SHOULD Items:

- Should build in mock.
Yes
- Should build on all supported archs
Not checked but probablyu
- Should function as described.
%checks pass
- Should have sane scriptlets.
None
- Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.
Not relavent.

- Should package latest version
1.3.1 is  newest except for a beta.


Issues:
None

Package 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.