[Bug 245688] Review Request: python-pywbem - Python WBEM client

[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=245688





--- Comment #19 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2008-10-29 01:13:30 EDT ---
This builds fine; rpmlint says:

  python-pywbem.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line
7)
Not a big deal; fix it if you like.

  python-pywbem.noarch: E: non-executable-script 
   /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pywbem/mof_compiler.py 0644
  python-pywbem.noarch: E: non-executable-script 
   /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pywbem/wbemcli.py 0644
These look like scripts (start with #!/whatever) but are not executable.  This
happens often with python code; for some reason python developers tend to make
files look like scripts even though nothing is ever supposed to run them.  If
they are intended to be executed, though, they should be executable.  Otherwise
I wouldn't worry about it, although you can remove the #! lines if you like.

  python-pywbem.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.6-1
   ['0.7-1.fc10', '0.7-1']
Your last changelog entry is for version 0.6-1 but the package has version
0.7-1.  Each version/release bump should have a changelog entry.

So just one really problematic rpmlint complaint.

Obviously I can't check against the upstream tarball since it doesn't exist
yet.

We don't generally provide license files when upstream doesn't include them. 
All we do is bug upstream to include them when they're absent.  Since upstream
seems to be you, I guess you can consider yourself bugged.  Maybe it can get
into that final 0.7 tarball.

Also, things are a bit confusing, because README says LGPLv2 but the actual
source files say LGPLv2+.  Can you clarify that?

There should be no need for the manual python dependency; rpm will generate an
appropriate one for you.

? Can't check source against upstream since it hasn't been released yet.
* 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.
? Actual license is not completely clear.
* license is open source-compatible.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
X rpmlint has valid complaints.
X manual python dependency is unnecessary:
   python-pywbem = 0.7-1.fc10
  =
X  python >= 2.3
   python(abi) = 2.5

* %check is not present; not test suite upstream.
* 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.