[Bug 195393] Review Request: pyxmms
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: pyxmms https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=195393 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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
[Bug 195393] Review Request: pyxmms
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: pyxmms https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195393 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 02:13 EST --- Created an attachment (id=131174) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=131174action=view) spec file -- 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
[Bug 195393] Review Request: pyxmms
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: pyxmms https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195393 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 02:43 EST --- looks good to me. APPROVED. Remember to close this as NEXTRELEASE once it's imported and built. -- 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
[Bug 195393] Review Request: pyxmms
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: pyxmms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195393
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 03:35 EST ---
A couple of points:
1. Simply adding %ghost /%{python_sitelib}/xmms/*.pyo is not sufficient since
the .pyo files are already included in the package courtesy of the previous line
/%{python_sitearch}/xmms/. The standard idiom for this is:
%dir %{python_sitearch}/xmms/
%{python_sitearch}/xmms/*.py
%{python_sitearch}/xmms/*.pyc
%ghost %{python_sitearch}/xmms/*.pyo
In this case it will also be necessary to have:
%{python_sitearch}/xmms/*.so
Note that no leading slash is necessary for %{python_sitearch} as the macro
expansion includes one already.
2. The version of the package imported into cvs does not have the spec file from
Comment #2. Please be more careful about what you import into cvs (and build?).
--
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
[Bug 195393] Review Request: pyxmms
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: pyxmms https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195393 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 04:27 EST --- Comment #2 was a test spec - I should have pointed that out. The one in cvs is the correct one. I'll amend the spec as suggested in #4, test and upload tonight. -- 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
[Bug 195393] Review Request: pyxmms
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: pyxmms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195393
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-19 19:35 EST ---
OK - Package name
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License (GPL)
OK - License field in spec matches
OK - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
4c49fe60326874e90cc0bf75a10f63d7 pyxmms-2.06.tar.bz2
4c49fe60326874e90cc0bf75a10f63d7 pyxmms-2.06.tar.bz2.1
OK - 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.
OK - 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}
n/a - .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.
OK - No rpmlint output.
Issues:
1. %file should probibly have:
%ghost %{python_sitelib}/xmms/*.pyo
per the python packaging page.
Fix that up and this package will be APPROVED.
--
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
