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=691635
--- Comment #4 from Ankur Sinha <sanjay.ankur(a)gmail.com> 2011-03-29 04:29:06 EDT
---
Thank you for the review.
(In reply to comment #3)
Unofficial review:
+ = OK
- = NA
? = issue
+ Package meets naming guidelines
+ Spec file matches base package name.
? Spec has consistent macro usage.
? Meets Packaging Guidelines.
+ License
+ License field in spec matches
? License file included in package
+ Spec in American English
+ Spec is legible.
- Sources match upstream md5sum:
- Package needs ExcludeArch
? BuildRequires correct
+ Spec handles locales/find_lang
- Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
+ Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
+ Package has a correct %clean section.
- Package has correct buildroot
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
+ Package is code or permissible content.
- Doc subpackage needed/used.
+ Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
- Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
- Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
- .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig
- .so files in -devel subpackage.
- -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
- .la files are removed.
+ Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
+ Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
+ Package has no duplicate files in %files.
+ Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
- Package owns all the directories it creates.
- No rpmlint output.
? final provides and requires are sane:
SHOULD Items:
- Should build in mock.
- Should build on all supported archs
- Should function as described.
- Should have sane scriptlets.
- Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.
+ Should have dist tag
- Should package latest version
Issues:
1. I'm not sure about the directory in which you located the py and pyc files
(seems wrong to me). Please read
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python for more information.
I checked up on this already. I'm not sure either. As of now, the files are
placed where the make script puts them. I'll contact upstream to confirm.
2. Please ask upstream to include license in the git repository (and
tarballs,
when upstream releases those) so that you can include the license file in your
package.
I'll do that and include a license as a SOURCE: in the meantime.
3. Missing build dependency: pygtk2
Weird, it built in mock correctly.
4. Missing run-time dependencies: mobile-broadband-provider-info,
ModemManager
Do I need to specify explicit requires?
5. You can use %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, but you CAN NOT not
both in the
same spec. Read
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot...
for more information.
Corrected.
Warnings:
1. Clean section is not required for Fedora 13 and above.
Removed.
Please fix these issues, and update the spec and SRPM accordingly.
Thanks,
Ankur
--
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.