Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: python-krbV https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190129 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-19 18:52 EST ------- A few issues: specfile in srpm is mode 0600 and source tarball in srpm is mode 0664. Both should be 644. These probably don't matter once things are in CVS, but just in case I would fix them before checking in. There's no reason to BuildRequires: python; python-devel will pull it in (not a blocker). You use %{optflags} instead of $RPM_OPT_FLAGS (which is fine), but still use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT instead of %{buildroot}. The guidelines explicitly discourage this: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-f3d77b27a5d29dfc1f5600ef3fc836f2e317badf Review: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. X specfile is properly named and is cleanly written but does not use macros consistently (see $RPM_BUILD_ROOT comment above). * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible; license text is included in the package. * source files match upstream (makes sense; you are the upstream): b79db9912efd76ab9a88441e455455d4 python-krbV-1.0.12.tar.gz b79db9912efd76ab9a88441e455455d4 python-krbV-1.0.12.tar.gz-srpm * latest version is being packaged. O BuildRequires are proper (BR: python not needed but not a blocker). * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). O rpmlint is silent (it does warn about inappropriate permissions in the SRPM). * final provides and requires are sane: krbVmodule.so()(64bit) python-krbV = 1.0.12-2.fc6 - libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) libkrb5.so.3()(64bit) libkrb5.so.3(krb5_3_MIT)(64bit) python(abi) = 2.4 python-abi = 2.4 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 * shared libraries are present, but internal to Python so there's no need to run ldconfig. * no .pyo files to %ghost. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. O file permissions are appropriate, except in the srpm. * %clean is present. O %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
