Re-Request for review: pytz and python-dateutil

[Jose' Matos]

On Friday 22 July 2005 17:20, José Matos wrote:
> Orion Poplawski wrote:
> >
> > http://pytz.sourceforge.net/
> >
> > Package at:
> >
> > http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/pytz.spec
> > http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/pytz-2005i-1.src.rpm

  This are my first reviews of Fedora Extras packages I hope I have checked 
all the requirements for a review.

  GOOD:

  - Package builds in mock.

  - rpmlint: invalid-license MIT License
   This is minor, rpmlint expects MIT. Probably it is the right fix, there 
is no need to have License as prefix and suffix. :-)

  - MIT is the license of the package and is a valid license for Fedora.

  - The license text is included in the package.

  - Package Naming Guidelines: it is a python package and its name starts 
with py.

  - Spec file name: The spec file name must matches the base package name.

  - The spec file is readable and is written in American English.

  - BuildRequires: correct.

  - No locales and no shared libraries.

  - The package owns all directories that it creates.

  - %clean section is present and is correct.

  - Macros are used consistently.

  - The package contains code (it could as well be considered content ;-).

  - %doc is accordingly to the packaging rules.

  - There are no devel files as well as static or dynamic libraries.

  - md5sum for source is the same as upstreams.

  MINOR:

  - Is it really necessary to include PKG-INFO into docs? Isn't it 
redundant?

  - Is it really necessary to make all python files executable? I don't see 
this rule anywhere...

  If the last item is supported by any more experienced packager then 
consider this as approved.

> > python-dateutil:
> >
> > Description:
> >
> > The dateutil module provides powerful extensions to the standard
> > datetime module, available in Python 2.3+.
> >
> > https://moin.conectiva.com.br/DateUtil
> >
> > Package at:
> >
> > http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python-dateutil.spec
> > http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python-dateutil-0.9-1.src.rpm

  GOOD:

  - Package builds in mock.

  - rpmlint: no warnings.

  - the license text is included in the package and is a valid license for 
Fedora.

  - Package Naming Guidelines: it is a python package and its name starts 
with python.

  - Spec file name: The spec file name must matches the base package name.

  - The spec file is readable and is written in American English.

  - BuildRequires: correct.

  - No locales and no shared libraries.

  - The package owns all directories that it creates.

  - %clean section is present and is correct.

  - Macros are used consistently.

  - The package contains code.

  - %doc is accordingly to the packaging rules.

  - There are no devel files as well as static or dynamic libraries.

  - md5sum for source is the same as upstreams (I have checked using a local 
copy, as since this package was submitted for approval there was another 
release upstreams and the older release does not seems to easily accessible 
from outside)

  MINOR:

  - Is it really necessary to include PKG-INFO into docs? Isn't it 
redundant?

  The last point is really minor so consider this package approved.

-- 
José Abílio