Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

--- Comment #1 from Marcela Maslanova <>  2009-01-22 
07:49:26 EDT ---
Firstly if your package should be also in other distro, please reconsider
inclusion of spec file. That's for your upstream package ;-)

Now Fedora packaging:
FAIL source files match upstream
You should create tar file somewhere on the project homepage.
FAIL package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
Use python-%{name}
FAIL specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros
macro %name-%version should be %{name}-%{version}. Without {} take some global
constants. Anyway brackets are used in most cases.
OK dist tag is present.
OK build root is correct.
OK license field matches the actual license.
OK license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream.
OK latest version is being packaged.
OK BuildRequires are proper.
OK %clean is present.
OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64).
OK debuginfo package is need.
FAIL rpmlint is silent.
OK final provides and requires look sane.
OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
OK owns the directories it creates.
OK no duplicates in %files.
OK file permissions are appropriate.
OK no scriptlets present.
OK code, not content.
OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
OK no headers.
OK no pkgconfig files.
OK no libtool .la droppings.

pycryptsetup.src: E: no-changelogname-tag
pycryptsetup.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag
pycryptsetup-debuginfo.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag

Docs are usually package in %files section like %doc CHANGES etc.

Configure bugmail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

Fedora-package-review mailing list

Reply via email to