https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1072054
Kalev Lember <kalevlember(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |kalevlember(a)gmail.com
Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #16 from Kalev Lember <kalevlember(a)gmail.com> ---
And here's the review checklist:
Fedora review gnome-code-assistance-0.3.1-4.fc21.src.rpm 2014-05-05
$ rpmlint gnome-code-assistance \
gnome-code-assistance-debuginfo \
gnome-code-assistance-0.3.1-4.fc21.src.rpm
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
+ OK
! needs attention
+ rpmlint is quiet
+ The package is named according to Fedora packaging guidelines
+ The spec file name matches the base package name.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The license field in the spec file matches the actual license
+ The package contains the license file (COPYING)
+ Spec file is written in American English
+ Spec file is legible
+ Upstream sources match the sources in the srpm
c0fddeea5dedab1d962883d7b7ed51b3 gnome-code-assistance-0.3.1.tar.xz
c0fddeea5dedab1d962883d7b7ed51b3 Download/gnome-code-assistance-0.3.1.tar.xz
+ The package builds in koji
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+ BuildRequires look sane
n/a locale handling
n/a ldconfig in %post and %postun
+ Package does not bundle copies of system libraries
n/a Package isn't relocatable
! Package owns all the directories it creates
/usr/libexec/gnome-code-assistance/ is unowned
+ No duplicate files in %files
+ Permissions are properly set
+ Consistent use of macros
+ The package must contain code or permissible content
n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ Files marked %doc should not affect package
n/a Header files should be in -devel
n/a Static libraries should be in -static
n/a Library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package
n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base
+ Packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a .desktop file handling
+ Doesn't own files or directories already owned by other packages
+ Filenames are valid UTF-8
I've found two more issues while going over the checklist:
1) Unowned /usr/libexec/gnome-code-assistance/ directory
2) Shipping both Python 2 and Python 3 bytecode
Since this package uses Python 3, would be nice to remove the Python 2
bytecompiled files, or somehow prevent rpmbuild from creating them in the first
place.
e.g. for one of the files, types.py:
$ rpm -ql gnome-code-assistance | grep types.*py
# Those are Python 3 bytecompiled files
/usr/libexec/gnome-code-assistance/backends/py/gnome/codeassistance/__pycache__/types.cpython-33.pyc
/usr/libexec/gnome-code-assistance/backends/py/gnome/codeassistance/__pycache__/types.cpython-33.pyo
#
/usr/libexec/gnome-code-assistance/backends/py/gnome/codeassistance/types.py
# ... and those are Python 2 bytecompiled files
/usr/libexec/gnome-code-assistance/backends/py/gnome/codeassistance/types.pyc
/usr/libexec/gnome-code-assistance/backends/py/gnome/codeassistance/types.pyo
Anyway, looks fine to me to go in, especially if you fix the unowned directory
before importing the package.
APPROVED
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component