[Bug 361941] Review Request: python-ZSI - Zolera SOAP Infrastructure

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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-ZSI - Zolera SOAP Infrastructure


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=361941


tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2007-12-20 21:50 EST -------
So, to summarize the past few comments:

The license is OK, but change from "BSD" to "LBNL BSD" (which will cause
rpmlint to complain until it gets a patch).

Include the copyright notices in the package.  Normally we're OK if upstream
leaves out the expected copy of the GPL COPYING file, but in this case we have
a weird license that almost certainly isn't going to be elsewhere on the system
and that seems to have been left out accidentally by upstream.  It hurts
nothing to include it.

Otherwise I think this package is fine.

* source files match upstream:
   368059c92c1afa6ae027d5aea6985caf0bbb890c5589c7d4564e59219ffa0f50
   ZSI-2.0.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
X license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   python-ZSI = 2.0-1.fc9
  =
   /usr/bin/env
   /usr/bin/python
   PyXML
   python(abi) = 2.5

* %check is not present; I've no idea how to test this package.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* 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.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.