[Bug 188205] Review Request: pessulus-0.9

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Apr 7 19:50:10 UTC 2006

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: pessulus-0.9


------- Additional Comments From tcallawa at redhat.com  2006-04-07 15:49 EST -------
A few changes need to be made to this package:

- You were missing a lot of BuildRequires. Look carefully at what %configure is
checking for.
- Remove unnecessary Requires: There is no need to hardcode gtk when pygtk is a
- You should always use version-release in changelog entries
- Make sure you have correct directory ownership, instead of wild-carding %{_libdir}
- use python_sitearch for python packages
- make python "scripts" executable, this will shutup rpmlint
- use find_lang to grab locales

I'm attaching a fixed spec to this email. The following review is based on the
fixed spec:


- rpmlint checks return:

E: pessulus no-binary (safe to ignore)
E: pessulus script-without-shellbang
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/Pessulus/__init__.py (safe to ignore, this is a
0 file)

- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license (GPL) OK, text in %doc, matches source
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream
- package compiles on devel (x86)
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- locales handled properly
- not relocatable
- owns all directories that it creates
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- %clean ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime 
- desktop file OK

Unless you have issues with any of the changes in my spec, the package (as
modified by my spec) is 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.

More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list