[Bug 188496] Review Request: PyQt-qscintilla

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sun Jun 4 02:52:15 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: PyQt-qscintilla


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188496





------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2006-06-03 22:44 EST -------
I'l go ahead and review the FC5 version.  I can't compare against the upstream
source since it doesn't exist any longer, but I can compare against what's in
Red Hat's lookaside store from the FC5 PyQt package which seems good enough.

This package places various files in /usr/share/sip/qtext, which seems odd as
that name looks to be unrelated to the package.  Plus, nothing seems to own
/usr/share/sip.  I guess those files are the SIP-generated bindings, but the
directory ownership is still an issue.

The -debuginfo package is empty.  It looks like the makefile strips the library,
which it shouldn't be doing:

make: Entering directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/PyQt-x11-gpl-3.15/qtext'
cp -f qtext.so
/var/tmp/PyQt-qscintilla-3.15-1.fc5-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/python2.4/site-packages/q
text.so
strip
/var/tmp/PyQt-qscintilla-3.15-1.fc5-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/python2.4/site-packages/qtext.so

The Makefile is generated, and I don't really know enough about what's generated
to know how to convince it not to strip the library. 

Review:
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.  License text included in package.
* source files match upstream (or at least Core's cache):
   8e70fac4f403fb759b537008170ff446  PyQt-x11-gpl-3.15.tar.gz
   8e70fac4f403fb759b537008170ff446  PyQt-x11-gpl-3.15.tar.gz-srpm
O 3.15 is not the latest version, but it must match what's in each particular FC
release.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock (FC5, x86_64).
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   qtext.so()(64bit)
   PyQt-qscintilla = 3.15-1.fc5
  =
   PyQt = 3.15
   libX11.so.6()(64bit)
   libXext.so.6()(64bit)
   libqscintilla.so.6()(64bit)
   libqt-mt.so.3()(64bit)
   python(abi) = 2.4
   python-abi = 2.4
* shared libraries are present, internal to Python.
* package is not relocatable.
X owns the directories it creates (/usr/share/sip)
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app.

-- 
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