[Bug 216104] Review Request: python-twisted-runner - process management library and inetd replacement
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Dec 16 19:09:19 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: python-twisted-runner - process management library and inetd replacement
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216104
kevin at tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |kevin at tummy.com
------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2006-12-16 14:09 EST -------
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License (MIT)
OK - 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:
ec4677a59dd2643d50da0914b3a1df88 TwistedRunner-0.2.0.tar.bz2
ec4677a59dd2643d50da0914b3a1df88 TwistedRunner-0.2.0.tar.bz2.1
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Package has correct buildroot
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
OK - No rpmlint output.
See below - final provides and requires are sane:
SHOULD Items:
OK - Should build in mock.
x386/x86_64 - Should build on all supported archs
OK - Should have dist tag
OK - Should package latest version
Issues:
1. Ditto the %{python} macro comment from the other python-twisted reviews. ;)
2. Should include LICENSE and NEWS as %doc files.
3. I see that this package is providing:
portmap.so (on i386)
and
portmap.so()(64bit) (on x86_64)
Should that be the case? Or should that be filtered out?
Thats a pretty generic .so name and it's not in a standard dir
where something could link to it.
--
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-package-review
mailing list