Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Toshio Ernie Kuratomi <a.badger(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi <a.badger(a)gmail.com> 2009-08-11 01:05:12
* rpmlint is clean
* Approved license and license tag matches LICENSE file.
- No conflicting licenses found in headers of package.
- License file included in %doc
* Specfile is readable
* Source matches upstream but see below.
* No locale files
* Not a shared library
* Not relocatable
* Owns all files and directories it creates
* %clean section set corectly
* macros used consistently
* code, not content
* %doc files do not affect package runtime.
* All filenames are valid utf-8
* Package name doesn't fit the guidelines but there is a lot of precedent for
django plugins. Asking on the fedora-packaging list. options are:
- Write an exception and use django-south
I like either the first or the last.
* You should add a revision to the checkout line in the Source0 comment so that
someone can get the exact revision at a later date. Something like this:
# hg clone -r 3a3140b338a4 https://bitbucket.org/andrewgodwin/south/
The idea is for the reviewer to know how to reproduce the exact tarball that
is in the srpm.
* This is a pre-release so the Release should start with "0." to avoid update
problems when 0.6 final is released. Since it's a snapshot package, it
should have some information about being a checkout encoded as well:
%global vcsdate 20090710
%global vcstag rc1-6
* Does not build in koji:
koji build --scratch dist-f12 django-south-0.6-1.fc11.rc1.src.rpm
Looks like you need to BuildRequire: python-setuptools-devel
In case you haven't seen them, the packaging generic Guidelines and python
Guidelines are relevant to this package:
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.