[Bug 474188] Review Request: python-openoffice - Python libraries for interacting with OpenOffice.org
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Sun Dec 7 04:22:35 UTC 2008
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474188
Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tibbs at math.uh.edu
Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> 2008-12-06 23:22:32 EDT ---
This builds but fails to install for me on rawhide:
Error: Missing Dependency: python(abi) = 2.5 is needed by package
1:openoffice.org-pyuno-3.0.1-12.1.fc11.x86_64 (fedora)
Error: Missing Dependency: libpython2.5.so.1.0()(64bit) is needed by package
1:openoffice.org-pyuno-3.0.1-12.1.fc11.x86_64 (fedora)
Not this package's fault; the dependencies are still screwed up from the puthon
2.6 upgrade in rawhide. I did an F10 build and it seems to have worked fine.
I have no comprehension of how to test this, so I am only reviewing the
packaging.
* source files match upstream. sha256sum:
31eaccab565fe2d7aab79a5a9f8048d6c771af9d897db5d68b2d614946836a38
openoffice-0.1-r33-20080929.tar.bz2
* 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.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (F10, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
python-openoffice = 0.1-0.1.20080929svn33.fc10
=
openoffice.org-pyuno
python(abi) = 2.5
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
APPROVED
--
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.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list