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-sexy


           What    |Removed                     |Added
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
OtherBugsDependingO|163776, 177841              |163778
              nThis|                            |

------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-08-16 22:23 EST -------
Greetings. Here's a review:

OK - Package name
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
See below - License
See below - License field in spec matches
See below - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
94273fc16a35123f1d3003f1080bf2c0  sexy-python-0.1.8.tar.gz
94273fc16a35123f1d3003f1080bf2c0  sexy-python-0.1.8.tar.gz.1
See below - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
n/a - Package needs ExcludeArch
OK - BuildRequires correct
n/a - Spec handles locales/find_lang
n/a - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
n/a - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
n/a - -doc subpackage needed/used.
n/a - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
n/a - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
n/a - .pc files in -devel subpackage.
n/a - .so files in -devel subpackage.
n/a - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
OK - .la files are removed.
n/a - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
See below - No rpmlint output.


See below - Should include License or ask upstream to include it.
See below - Should build in mock.


1. The spec says the license is LGPL, but the COPYING file is the GPL,
and there's nothing else that says it's LGPL. Can you get upstream to

2. No need to include the generic INSTALL document. There is no useful
information in it.

3. Package doesn't built in mock. Missing BuildRequires: libxml2-devel.

4. python_sitelib isn't used, can remove the first line of the spec where
it's defined?

5. rpmlint output:

W: python-sexy setup-not-quiet
setup-not-quiet :
You should use -q to have a quiet extraction of the source tarball, as this
generate useless lines of log ( for buildbot, for example )

(removing FE-NEEDSPONSOR as you were already sponsored in: )

Configure bugmail:
------- 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

Reply via email to