[Bug 474430] Review Request: python-uulib - Python interface to RFC 4122 compliant UUID objects

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474430


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 #5 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2008-12-10 16:11:21 EDT ---
Basically, every package must have a devel branch; you should immediately
dead.package it upon import to ensure that the package is never branched for
any Fedora releases.  I don't know of any EPEL-specific procedure other than
that.

I'll note for posterity that the code carries no license, but the README.txt
file which comes from the same upstream site specifies one.

rpmlint says:
  python-uuid.i386: E: no-binary
  python-uuid-debuginfo.i386: E: empty-debuginfo-package
The debuginfo package is empty, and I see no calls to the compiler in the build
log.  Are you sure this package needs to be arch-specific?  I'm not sure it
would even build properly on x86_64; did you try?  (On that platform,
python_sitearch and python_sitelib aren't the same, while on i386 they are.)



* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:
  1f87cc004ac5120466f36c5beae48b4c48cc411968eed0eaecd3da82aa96193f  
   uuid-1.30.tar.gz
  2b50f69a57f89054027ff1ab495aca9b65664edb6e76d1b6e4064584cfac948f  
   uuid.README.txt
* 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 not included upstream.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (EPEL5, i386).
X debuginfo package is empty.
X rpmlint has valid complaints.
 final provides and requires are sane:
   python-uuid = 1.30-1.el5
  =
   python >= 2.3
   python(abi) = 2.4

* 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.

-- 
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.